
F1 Engine Power Secrets (2000) - libpcap
http://www.pureluckdesign.com/ferrari/f1engine/index.htm
======
simonsarris
> Turbochargers have come and gone and there hasn't been a switch to two-
> stroke or rotary, scotch yoke engines

This is tangential to the article but these things are not in F1 because they
are bad but because several of the configurations are too good. Most of the
above are _banned._ Today only 4-Stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are
permitted in F1. See page 12:

[http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-
public.nsf/C5F0793AC322A70CC12...](http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-
public.nsf/C5F0793AC322A70CC125732900339466/$FILE/04F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf)

The FIA also banned Rotary engines in Le Mans after the 787B won, enforcing
all participants afterwards to use 3.5L F1 engines (correct me if I'm wrong
there, might have changed since 1991?)

It kind of saddens me because racing platforms (esp. Rally) are big drivers of
car innovation (suspension, safety, power). Arbitrarily banning things like
rotary engines has - in a way - killed an immeasurable amount of research
money that might have gone towards the topic.

~~~
ovi256
Yeah, but FIA also has a mandate to keep the race safe. So it tries to
restrict maximum speed and power, without killing the sport. For example, air
inlets have a maximum area limit. This clearly restricts air intake.

F1 is not the only sport with such restriction. The Tour de France has imposed
minimum bike weights and the actual 2 wheel upright bike configuration, which
is far from optimal. All other cycling competitions have followed. Recumbent
bikes allow the racer to better use his legs and are more aerodynamic, thus
faster. You can also buy bikes that are lighter than Tour de France bikes.
It's just that they're really expensive, of course.

~~~
CWuestefeld
If the need is to limit power, then why not directly limit power: make a rule
stating "no more than 600bhp" or something like that?

Improved technologies could still flourish. If a new approach _could_ deliver
more than the power limit, it might instead be re-tuned to provide better
durability or better fuel efficiency or lighter weight.

But the FIA has interfered with any of these possible paths of innovation,
because it's thinking more like a government and less like a group whose very
purpose is to compete.

~~~
mberning
There is a lot that goes into engine performance rather than just raw power.
This is why the rules become so intricate and convoluted.

------
eftpotrm
F1 anorak - that article is _years_ out of date. You can tell that anyway from
the tech but when it starts talking about the new ruling for 2001....

Much of the core technology isn't that different, significantly because they
first restricted and then effectively froze development a few years ago, but
the engines aren't 3l V10s any more but 2.4l V8s.

In the time of the 3l V10s, from memory they peaked at over 900bhp. For a
while they were revving to about 19,000, but as the materials science for this
got increasingly complex they restricted it to about 17,000 on cost grounds -
after all there's no real sporting value to everyone spending an extra $50m to
get to exactly the same relative performances with little noticeable
difference in outcomes.

The 2.4l V8s were about 750ish from memory when they came in; I've not heard
more recent figures but due to development restrictions I doubt they're much
different. The other interesting technology now is the extra hybrid power
source and the large kick that can offer; interestingly it was very nearly
raced (in a different form) by McLaren in 1998, though a late rule change that
was suspected to be at the behest of another team banned it.

Otherwise - the core reason the engines are recognisable is that they're
required in the rules to be so. Turbos were restricted then banned in 1998
after, at the design peak in 1986, reaching 1500bhp from 1.5l engines. They're
quite likely to be back in a few years though, albeit in a very different form
to their mid-80s incarnation. Turbines - what I suspect we'd actually be
running otherwise, although indirectly as electric generators for capacitor
packs - were banned even earlier. I don't think Wankel engines have ever been
legal in F1. Diesel definitely isn't.

When we say recognisable though, I'm not sure people realise just how alien
these engines are within the limits of a piston engine. They barely do
anything below what would be red-line revs for a road car and generate almost
no power until they're past 12-13,000RPM. Piston speeds are firmly supersonic
and the elasticity of the metal needs to be factored in, yet I read once that
the pistons were getting so close to the tops of the cylinder heads in
combustion that there was a visible ring of clear metal in the combustion
deposits because there wasn't space there for the deposits to form. The real
shock though is the noise; we're all used to what a road performance engine
sounds like, but a 17,000RPM V8 (and even more so a 19,000RPM V10) howls and
screams like no road engine you'll ever hear, bike included. Animalistic,
harsh, edgy and the sort of sound that lives with you; TV doesn't come close
to capturing it.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_The real shock though is the noise;_

I've been to one F1 race, sitting at turn 1 in Shanghai. There was a TV
helicopter maybe 50 meters over our heads -- and its noise was completely
drowned out by the cars' engines.

~~~
klinquist
Indeed. At the French Grand Prix (Magny-Cours) in 2002... I was 10th row off
of the front straight. I was trying to shove napkins in my ears.

Any F1 fans should download the UK Top Gear season 15 episode 5 and watch the
last 15 minutes - a short tribute to Ayrton Senna. It's tremendous.

~~~
trafficlight
Series 10 episode 8 is also a good one. Richard Hammond gets to drive a
Renault R25, circa 2005. He had a hell of a time even getting the thing onto
the track. The pit crew actually had to tow the car back to the garage to warm
it back up; the tolerances on those motors are so tight that, when cold, they
are effectively seized.

~~~
eftpotrm
Thinking Renault engines...

Around that period they had the central display at the Goodwood Festival of
Speed. Clearly their engine management shop had been bored one day, because
they'd written a test programme which enabled them to play tunes on the engine
just by revving it, and were showing off for the assembled crowds. It's
honestly that fast revving and high pitched that it could do a pretty decent
job.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XR7OpM2Ufk>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aArSn4IhHI>

------
mpakes
One thing to keep in mind.. this article about 10 years old. The current
engine configuration is a 90-deg 2.4L V8, rev-limited to 18,000 RPM. Typical
peak power output is around 700bhp. Additionally, a team is allowed to use a
maximum of 8 engines per season without penalty, which forces teams to run the
engine more conservatively. This specification is frozen until the 2013
season.

Over the years, teams come up with creative ways to increase power output
while still complying with the F1 rulebook. Then the FIA tends to ban the new
methods or otherwise limit the engines in order to keep power output down.
Power peaked in the early-mid 2000's with the 3.0L V10 format, with some
engines producing as much as 950bhp at nearly 20,000 RPM.

The primary reasons for managing engine output are driver safety and
development cost. In the early 2000's, Ferrari spent an average of $300M/year
on their Formula 1 efforts. The cost to be competitive in F1 led to some
manufacturers pulling out of the sport. Limiting engine specifications and the
number of engines a team can use in a season has helped bring down the costs,
and the sport now has a full grid of teams participating.

~~~
jcoby
You need to go back to the 80s to see when power really peaked. There were
1.5L engines in the mid 80s that produced in excess of 1,500HP in race trim.
There is one on display at the BMW factory in SC that overran the dyno in
qualifying trim. It's a tiny little thing surrounded by two giant turbos and
intercoolers.

~~~
mpakes
Of course you're right about this.. the turbocharged era produced incredible
engine output. I worded my comment poorly.. I meant to convey that the power
output of the 3.0L V10 format peaked in the mid-2000s.

------
frankus
Here's a cool comparison video of Porsche GT3 versus F1 on the same
track/corner:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5dhhpSHCw>

F1 makes some of the fastest street-legal cars look downright slow.

~~~
brianpan
I knew they were about twice as fast, but seeing it like that...holy cow!

------
ck2
You don't even have to get exotic to see it's all about how much you want to
spend in technology to get something out of an engine.

Ford makes a 65mpg engine with good performance in Europe.

They refuse to sell it in the USA because it would not be as profitable for
them, even when it's made in Mexico.

[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b40990604...](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm)

So basically we still drive 30mpg cars.

Maybe when gas hits $5/gallon that will change.

------
shimi
The magic of F1 cars in the last years was for that although the power output
of the engines has decreased and so is the downforce due to regulations lap
times have stayed consistent. Its fascinating to see how people like Adrian
Newey keep on pushing the envelope to produce brilliant cars with tough
regulations.

BTW A short poll how many HN readers are into F1?

~~~
Nick_C
Yes. I used to live a few hundred metres from the track. The noise is
incredible, you can hear several kilometres away.

