Click the link below to see a video of a 2006 spec Formula1 2.4 liter V8 Cosworth engine hit 20,000 RPM's on the dyno.
http://paultan.org/wp-content/cosworthv8.mpg
http://paultan.org/wp-content/cosworthv8.mpg
V8 F1 Cosworth engine 20,000 Rpm's video.
- Thread starter Buzzsaw
- Start date
- Status
Buzzsaw, Thanks for the preview of the 2006 Cosworth V8. 20000rpm WOW!
I'll miss the shreek of the V10's and V12's of the past. Any idea on the Horsepower output?
I'll miss the shreek of the V10's and V12's of the past. Any idea on the Horsepower output?
I don't know about the new Cosworth F1 engine, but the new Toyota 2.4 litre V8 is 'suggested' (no-one in F1 will ever confirm anything about current or future engine specifications) to produce about 750hp. That's down from the approx 940hp of the current 3.0 litre V10.
Wow. At 9000 rpm it sounds like it is loping along....
Sounds like there was still some more room to go higher! I'm wondering at what rpm the engine would let go at.
Anyway, I'm going to miss the sound of the V10s. The V8's will have a lower note and it just won't be the same.
Anyone remember the sound of Ferrari's V12 from 1989 to 1994? That was a screamer, and it "only" revved to about 15,000rpm back then.
Anyway, I'm going to miss the sound of the V10s. The V8's will have a lower note and it just won't be the same.
Anyone remember the sound of Ferrari's V12 from 1989 to 1994? That was a screamer, and it "only" revved to about 15,000rpm back then.
BRM racing machines were I think 1.5L 16 cylender engines turing 16,000-18,000 rpms back in the late 50s?
Anybody remember the Honda GP bikes of the 60's?
They had a 50cc 3 cylinder, a 125cc 5 cylinder and a 250cc 6 cylinder. I believe the 250 revved past 20,000 rpm. I also remember in the late 70's Honda also built a 500cc 4 cylinder GP bike with oval pistons and 8 valves per cylinder(like a V-8) and reved past 20,000. I also remember reading an article in Cycle World about how sensitive the carbs were on the 125. When on the track, If the bike would go into a corner in the shade, the change in barometric pressure would cause the engine to mis-fire.
When I went to the Long Beach GP's in 77 & 78, there was a mixture of interesting engines and sounds. The V-12 Ferrari's were like music. The V-8 Cosworth's sounded like Nascar engines. The turbo V-6 1.5L Renaults sounded like unmuffled chainsaws on Nitro. Those were the days!
They had a 50cc 3 cylinder, a 125cc 5 cylinder and a 250cc 6 cylinder. I believe the 250 revved past 20,000 rpm. I also remember in the late 70's Honda also built a 500cc 4 cylinder GP bike with oval pistons and 8 valves per cylinder(like a V-8) and reved past 20,000. I also remember reading an article in Cycle World about how sensitive the carbs were on the 125. When on the track, If the bike would go into a corner in the shade, the change in barometric pressure would cause the engine to mis-fire.
When I went to the Long Beach GP's in 77 & 78, there was a mixture of interesting engines and sounds. The V-12 Ferrari's were like music. The V-8 Cosworth's sounded like Nascar engines. The turbo V-6 1.5L Renaults sounded like unmuffled chainsaws on Nitro. Those were the days!
The Matra V12 driven by Jaques Laffite at Long Beach 1977 & 1978 sounded even better than the Ferrari's.
That thing sounds cool, but ****, V8s ain't made to spin 20,000 rpm. It's amazing what they can do with modern valvetrain technology, amongst other things.
99,
I am pretty sure these type of engines in Formula 1 use pnumatic valve closure systems. High pressure gas replaces the valve springs, which helps solve valve float problems. Every once in a while during a F1 race, a car would pit and the mechanic's would try to recharge the pnumatic valve closure gas. It usually only worked for about 2 or 3 laps because the damage was already done before they topped it off. At 19k plus RPM's, things happen quickly.
I am pretty sure these type of engines in Formula 1 use pnumatic valve closure systems. High pressure gas replaces the valve springs, which helps solve valve float problems. Every once in a while during a F1 race, a car would pit and the mechanic's would try to recharge the pnumatic valve closure gas. It usually only worked for about 2 or 3 laps because the damage was already done before they topped it off. At 19k plus RPM's, things happen quickly.
I really need this engine going to and from work.
The F1 engine 'boys' are expecting the V8s to be within 50 HP by the start of the season (of the 05 V10s). We believe they can achieve this goal because the 90 degree V8 is inherently better balanced than the V10s were. Most of the V10s had exotic balance shafts to quell the vibrations, but noe of this is necessary with the 90 d V8s.
The short strokes (around 35mm) are short enough to permit 23,000-24,000 RPMs before anything in the bottom end become structurally limiting. So, if they can get to top end (valves) to live at 23,000 (and hold frictional losses in check) we will have achieved essential parity with the 05 V10s.
The short strokes (around 35mm) are short enough to permit 23,000-24,000 RPMs before anything in the bottom end become structurally limiting. So, if they can get to top end (valves) to live at 23,000 (and hold frictional losses in check) we will have achieved essential parity with the 05 V10s.
I remember the early bikes. The RPM they turned was astronomical at the time.
The oval piston NR-500 engine was built to compete with the 2 cycle engines of the day, an almost impossible task given the rules limited the number of cylinders to 4 and fixed the displacement at 500cc with no advantages given to 4 strokes.
Honda built what was effectively a V8, but with 8 pistons siamesed so that they used 4 "cylinders." The cylinders had 2 spark plugs and 2 sets of valves ( 8 valves per piston ) and each piston had 2 connecting rods.
Here's a photo of the piston and rod assembly - http://www.billzilla.org/nrpiston.jpg
All of this was for nothing as it turned out since they were never competitive against the Yamaha 4 cylinder 2 strokes, or even Honda's own 3 cylinder 2 stroke and the joke at the time was the NR in NR-500 stood for "never ready."
WOW
35 mm stroke
that thing sounded more like a turbine than a recip
thanks
35 mm stroke
that thing sounded more like a turbine than a recip
thanks
My brother has some LP recordings of those 1960`s GP bikes on the Isle of Man circuit. The smaller displacement Hondas had a very narrow power band. It was difficult to discern change in engine pitch when the rider shifted. Also remember that Moto-Guzzi`s V-8 bike was on the recording. Was ridden by Dicky Dale.
Mark Webber who started racing at the Canberra Kart track where I race will have this engine next year in his Williams. Hoping Williams do better than this year
Is wonder why they went away from the turbos? Too much power I suppose. Of course that could have been limited in numerous ways.
As we will never have 20k rpm road cars, I would think that turbo engines would be a more useful test bed for something that might benefit the auto industry in general.
I too will miss the V-10's. They screamed but you always heard the inherent inbalace of the engine which gave it that unique growl sound. I believe I read that the V-12 was the most balanced engine, followed by the V-8, then the staight 6, then the V-6, then the V-10, then the inline 5, then the inline 4. I don't remember the straight eight. I wonder how close I came to getting it right- it was a long time ago.
This wil really shake things up. I suspect the British are behind this as the Renaults were really getting dominant. I hate Kimi had such bad luck with reliability early in the season- he could have very easily won the championship. He also had a significant chance last year but botched it. He clearly could be the fastest driver on most courses when required.
He's young and a bit too wild perhaps. I supect this will give the cosworths some new found respect this season. I wonder who all will run them?
I reckon Michael is passing his prime even though he is, I assume, still in great shape.
As we will never have 20k rpm road cars, I would think that turbo engines would be a more useful test bed for something that might benefit the auto industry in general.
I too will miss the V-10's. They screamed but you always heard the inherent inbalace of the engine which gave it that unique growl sound. I believe I read that the V-12 was the most balanced engine, followed by the V-8, then the staight 6, then the V-6, then the V-10, then the inline 5, then the inline 4. I don't remember the straight eight. I wonder how close I came to getting it right- it was a long time ago.
This wil really shake things up. I suspect the British are behind this as the Renaults were really getting dominant. I hate Kimi had such bad luck with reliability early in the season- he could have very easily won the championship. He also had a significant chance last year but botched it. He clearly could be the fastest driver on most courses when required.
He's young and a bit too wild perhaps. I supect this will give the cosworths some new found respect this season. I wonder who all will run them?
I reckon Michael is passing his prime even though he is, I assume, still in great shape.
Slick,
The Bosch Automotive Handbook lists the following designs as having perfect balance:
Inline-6 (w/120-degree ignition intervals)
Boxer-6 (w/120-degree ignition intervals)
V12 (60-degree V, w/60-degree ignition intervals)
V8 (90-degree) is nearly perfect with 90-degree ignition intervals, but has some free moments of the first order
The Bosch Automotive Handbook lists the following designs as having perfect balance:
Inline-6 (w/120-degree ignition intervals)
Boxer-6 (w/120-degree ignition intervals)
V12 (60-degree V, w/60-degree ignition intervals)
V8 (90-degree) is nearly perfect with 90-degree ignition intervals, but has some free moments of the first order
Why F1 went away from Turbos--it was thought at the time that 1000 HP (race 1400 HP qualifying) was becoming dangerous. It was very difficult for tires of that era from lasting a whole race {hint: no pit stops in F1 of that era}
After the 1.5 litre turbo era, F1 went to 3.5 litre naturally asperated engines (any cylinder count). These started out as 13,000 RPM monsters with 650 HP and ended up 2 years later with 850 HP at 17,000. And for the same reason as above the displacement was dropped.
After the 3.5 litre era, F1 went to a 3.0 litre V10 naturally asperated engine formula. These things started at 700 HP and quickly grew to 800, then more slowly to the 940HP levels of last year. Then for the same reasons as before displacement was dropped.*
After the 3.0 litre V10s, we get 2.4 litre V8s with fixed bore centers and a fixed CoG point. These engines are expected to debut in the 800 HP range and get back to 900 HP within 3 years. The inherent balance of the V8s over the V10s solves the one axasperating issue with the V10s--imbalance. So, the 19,000 RPM limit of the V10s will not prevent the V8s from running upwards into the 23,000-24,000 RPM range--even with the fixed bore center of the V8s. If the engine boys can solve some friction issues, there is no reason a V8 engine with todays structural materials and current F1 rules cannot deliver 950 HP.
[*] in the middle of the 3.0 litre formula, they dropped slick tires and implemented groved tires to slow the cars down. Well that worked for exactly 2 races before the F1 boys were ahead of the pace of the previous years cars on the lesser tires.
The implementation of the 1 engine per race weekend slowed the developemnt of engine technology from the expected 950 HP in 2004 to only 900 HP in 2004.
The implementation of the 1 engine per 2 race weekend rule only prevented 1000 HP cars in 2005 (we only saw 940 HP levels and excelent longevity).
If anything, the longevity of these engines bodes well that sometime in the distant future automotive drivers can indeed experience 10,000+ automotive engines that meet emissions and 120,000 mile durability levels. There are already several 9,000 RPM engines** that meet EPA emissions and longevity.
[**] fuel cutoff not RedLine.
After the 1.5 litre turbo era, F1 went to 3.5 litre naturally asperated engines (any cylinder count). These started out as 13,000 RPM monsters with 650 HP and ended up 2 years later with 850 HP at 17,000. And for the same reason as above the displacement was dropped.
After the 3.5 litre era, F1 went to a 3.0 litre V10 naturally asperated engine formula. These things started at 700 HP and quickly grew to 800, then more slowly to the 940HP levels of last year. Then for the same reasons as before displacement was dropped.*
After the 3.0 litre V10s, we get 2.4 litre V8s with fixed bore centers and a fixed CoG point. These engines are expected to debut in the 800 HP range and get back to 900 HP within 3 years. The inherent balance of the V8s over the V10s solves the one axasperating issue with the V10s--imbalance. So, the 19,000 RPM limit of the V10s will not prevent the V8s from running upwards into the 23,000-24,000 RPM range--even with the fixed bore center of the V8s. If the engine boys can solve some friction issues, there is no reason a V8 engine with todays structural materials and current F1 rules cannot deliver 950 HP.
[*] in the middle of the 3.0 litre formula, they dropped slick tires and implemented groved tires to slow the cars down. Well that worked for exactly 2 races before the F1 boys were ahead of the pace of the previous years cars on the lesser tires.
The implementation of the 1 engine per race weekend slowed the developemnt of engine technology from the expected 950 HP in 2004 to only 900 HP in 2004.
The implementation of the 1 engine per 2 race weekend rule only prevented 1000 HP cars in 2005 (we only saw 940 HP levels and excelent longevity).
If anything, the longevity of these engines bodes well that sometime in the distant future automotive drivers can indeed experience 10,000+ automotive engines that meet emissions and 120,000 mile durability levels. There are already several 9,000 RPM engines** that meet EPA emissions and longevity.
[**] fuel cutoff not RedLine.
V8's in F1 aren't that well balanced as they are using 180* (flat plane) cranks to maximise cylinder scavanging with their exhaust systems (and hence, power).
A 90* V8 has a much better inherent balance.
The designers had pretty much dealt with the V10's inherent imbalances, although the wide angle Renault from a few seasons back proved to be a problem child till the end.
Renault finally sacrificed the lower C of G for the better balance and better packaging/areodynamics of the narrower vee angle that everyone else was using. (and made more power/torque)
A 90* V8 has a much better inherent balance.
The designers had pretty much dealt with the V10's inherent imbalances, although the wide angle Renault from a few seasons back proved to be a problem child till the end.
Renault finally sacrificed the lower C of G for the better balance and better packaging/areodynamics of the narrower vee angle that everyone else was using. (and made more power/torque)
- Status
