There is a must see video of a Cosworth F1 engine on the dyno.
One of the most remarkable parts to me was at the end when they slow it down to what sounds like an idle, it is still at 9k rpm.
http://www.cosworth.com/
Must see dyno video
Moderator: Team
-
SchmidtMotorWorks
- Vendor
- Posts: 11003
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
- Location: CA
-
Robert Kane
- Pro
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:46 pm
- Location:
Re: Must see dyno video
I believe the number in the lower left corner is torque. If it is in lb/ft then it makes about 915 HP. If it is newton meters then 650. Either way, not too shabby for 2.4 litersSchmidtMotorWorks wrote:There is a must see video of a Cosworth F1 engine on the dyno.
One of the most remarkable parts to me was at the end when they slow it down to what sounds like an idle, it is still at 9k rpm.
http://www.cosworth.com/
-
SStrokerAce
- Guru
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: Upstate, NY
Cool Video.
With 278 ft lbs peak TQ I doubt it's a 2.4L motor even if you are Cosworth and not in the thick of the fight of the HP battle with Ferrari, Renault, BMW, Mercedes your not going to show examples of your 2006 model year F1 motor over the net.
It's 1.52 ft lbs per cube, or 92.6 ft lbs per L. I would say that's pretty close to other high end non drag racing NA motors like a Cup motor (540 ft lbs out of a 357cube motor)
I would imagine that the 2.4L V8's for next year are going to be in the 22,000rpm range soon with close to the same HP that they make now the TQ will just be down to about 220 ft lbs.
bobqzzi, glad that I wasn't the only one to freeze frame it and figure that out as well!
Bret
With 278 ft lbs peak TQ I doubt it's a 2.4L motor even if you are Cosworth and not in the thick of the fight of the HP battle with Ferrari, Renault, BMW, Mercedes your not going to show examples of your 2006 model year F1 motor over the net.
It's 1.52 ft lbs per cube, or 92.6 ft lbs per L. I would say that's pretty close to other high end non drag racing NA motors like a Cup motor (540 ft lbs out of a 357cube motor)
I would imagine that the 2.4L V8's for next year are going to be in the 22,000rpm range soon with close to the same HP that they make now the TQ will just be down to about 220 ft lbs.
bobqzzi, glad that I wasn't the only one to freeze frame it and figure that out as well!
Bret
-
SchmidtMotorWorks
- Vendor
- Posts: 11003
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
- Location: CA
Yah, I showed this video to some friends at work today (software coders) and recieved kind of a shrug of the shoulders response like I am strange to think this is interesting.Man just listening to that made my liver quiver!!!!!
I guess we are really lucky to get excitment out of hearing burning fuel make metal parts move fast.
The again, I don't see anything exciting about object oriented code.
Tastes differ.
-
OldSStroker
- Guru
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: Upstate New York
I'm not really surprised the software guys shrugged. Not too many of them are "Renaissance Men", which is too bad. They miss many of the finer things in life. Tell them it was 20000 petaflops, not rpm. That might get them excited.SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:Yah, I showed this video to some friends at work today (software coders) and recieved kind of a shrug of the shoulders response like I am strange to think this is interesting.Man just listening to that made my liver quiver!!!!!
I guess we are really lucky to get excitment out of hearing burning fuel make metal parts move fast.
The again, I don't see anything exciting about object oriented code.
Tastes differ.
-
SStrokerAce
- Guru
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: Upstate, NY
It is interesting that a few different people predict between 20,000 RPM and 22,000 RPM out of the new 2.4L V8s.SStrokerAce wrote: I would imagine that the 2.4L V8's for next year are going to be in the 22,000rpm range soon with close to the same HP that they make now the TQ will just be down to about 220 ft lbs
Bret
When you estimate 22,000 RPM, what factors are you considering? I'm curious because I've never heard an explanation as to why the new estimates exit - besides reduced torsional vibration of the crankshaft and cams allowing tighter piston to valve clearances.
-
SStrokerAce
- Guru
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: Upstate, NY
Piston Speed and Physical Size of the motor...
My guess is that the FIA thought... well if we take 600cc out of these things and tell them they can only run a V8 then they will just cut two cylinders off the motor and loose all this power... WRONG. They design these cars around the smallest motor they can but block length is not really a problem. So most likely they will increase the bore a little, drop the stroke, lower the deck height and spin these things higher to get back to the power levels from before. Basically they will still be at the same piston speed limits that they have now, but with less stroke that means more RPM. They have pneumatic springs so valvetrain is not much of a issue but cylinder heads will be somewhat of a issue since they have the same sized cylinder but they are turing it faster, all though the piston speeds are the same so it's not going to be that bad.
I actually think the cars could be much faster since the RPM will increase and the gearing will increase a lot more than the TQ curve will decrease so they will have more TQ at the tires... might take a little time to do that but it will happen.
Bret
My guess is that the FIA thought... well if we take 600cc out of these things and tell them they can only run a V8 then they will just cut two cylinders off the motor and loose all this power... WRONG. They design these cars around the smallest motor they can but block length is not really a problem. So most likely they will increase the bore a little, drop the stroke, lower the deck height and spin these things higher to get back to the power levels from before. Basically they will still be at the same piston speed limits that they have now, but with less stroke that means more RPM. They have pneumatic springs so valvetrain is not much of a issue but cylinder heads will be somewhat of a issue since they have the same sized cylinder but they are turing it faster, all though the piston speeds are the same so it's not going to be that bad.
I actually think the cars could be much faster since the RPM will increase and the gearing will increase a lot more than the TQ curve will decrease so they will have more TQ at the tires... might take a little time to do that but it will happen.
Bret
Thanks, I see.
They're already at extreme bore/stroke ratios of 2.3 (or at least they were in the '99 - '03 period). You would think they would have trouble having enough time to reach a good level of mass fraction burn at geometries more aggressive than that - especially at these new RPM levels. 4 of 5 years from now when information on the 2006 engines is made more accessible, it will be most interesting to find out what exactly they did.
They're already at extreme bore/stroke ratios of 2.3 (or at least they were in the '99 - '03 period). You would think they would have trouble having enough time to reach a good level of mass fraction burn at geometries more aggressive than that - especially at these new RPM levels. 4 of 5 years from now when information on the 2006 engines is made more accessible, it will be most interesting to find out what exactly they did.
They are now limited to a 98mm bore (about 2mm more than the current V-10s use) so there isn't a heck of a lot to be gained there, but the cranks will be shorter and lighter.Shaun wrote:Thanks, I see.
They're already at extreme bore/stroke ratios of 2.3 (or at least they were in the '99 - '03 period). You would think they would have trouble having enough time to reach a good level of mass fraction burn at geometries more aggressive than that - especially at these new RPM levels. 4 of 5 years from now when information on the 2006 engines is made more accessible, it will be most interesting to find out what exactly they did.
I'm sure the current V-10s can run to 20,000 on the dyno, but they need to go 2 complete race weekends, so they keep the revs "down" to 18,800 or so.
To me, the most amazing thing is that the current V-10s weigh under 200 pounds....