NASCAR V8 vs Formula 1 V8

Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,857
Location
PA
Wow. Excellent article -- at least as far as I can tell without the knowledge to evaluate the methods and data. Thanks for posting!
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,673
Location
'Stralia
 Quote:
BMEP and MPS Two of the most accepted performance-comparison yardsticks are Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP, explained HERE) and Mean Piston Speed (MPS, explained HERE). The BMEP of the Formula One engine at peak torque (table line 13) is 15.17 bar while the Cup engine produces a peak torque BMEP of 15.12 bar (0.3 % less). At peak power, the Formula One BMEP value (table line 22) is 14.6 bar while the Cup figure is 14.0 bar (4.1% less). It is evident that producing 15.17 bar BMEP at 17,000 RPM and 14.6 bar at 19,250 RPM are remarkable achievements, given that the ratio between Friction Mean Effective Pressure (FMEP) and BMEP is much higher at Formula One than it is at Cup RPM. However, it is astonishing that the Cup BMEP (remember, flat-tappet cam, pushrod / rocker arm, two-valves-per-cylinder, single carburetor) is only 0.3% less than the Formula One figure at peak torque, and only 4.1 % less than Formula One at peak power. Even more revealing, at peak power RPM (table line 19) the Formula One engine MPS (table line 23) is 25.5 m/s (5025 ft/min), while that of the Cup engine is less than 3% lower at 24.8 m/s (4875 ft/min). At redline, the Formula One MPS is 26.5 m/sec, while the Cup MPS is a stunning 27.5 m/sec. To put those numbers in perspective, Professor Gordon Blair wrote (Race Engine Technology, issue 27) that 26.5 m/sec was the highest he had seen. While being cautious with empiricisms, it is interesting to compare the nondimensional values of BMEP x MPS (bar x m/sec) at peak power (table line 24) and at peak torque (table line 15). At peak power, the Cup engine value is only 7% less than the Formula One engine, again showing the remarkable performance extracted from this production-based V8. There is a bigger disparity at peak torque (nearly 9%), largely due to the greater spread between peak power and peak torque in the Cup engine (15% of redline versus 11% of redline for the Formula One engine).
Basically demonstrates that the laws of physics and material sciences remarkably apply to both engines. This was the basic reasoning for the "rated" horsepower that they used to tax vehicles on in Britain, that lead to longer strokes as materials got better. It's not (truly) surprising that the dimensionless comparisons of the two pinnacle engines are so similar.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,527
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It's freaking amazing that a pushrod two valve motor can be so close to the output of a Formula One engine!!!!
They've had some pretty wild pushrod stuff for a long time though ;\) My cam grinder's latest project:
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
 Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It's freaking amazing that a pushrod two valve motor can be so close to the output of a Formula One engine!!!!
Not really. For example, look at the 1994 Indy 500 where Mercedes entered the race with a purpose-built pushrod V8 that took advantage of the same rules that Buick had used for years with its V6 at Indy. Because the engine was "handicapped" with pushrods, the rules allowed more boost on the turbos and bigger throttle bodies. Mercedes kicked everyone's butt with that engine. The two Benz cars were so far out in front most of the race it wasn't even interesting.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,857
Location
PA
 Originally Posted By: sprintman
Bit of a capacity difference too.
Just a little. ;\) But then, there's also a bit of a redline difference the other way...
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,673
Location
'Stralia
It's not that surprising when the respective engines are compared using "dimensionless numbers", which is a standard engineering practice for designing things that you haven't made before. e.g. Reynolds number (densityxvelocityxdiameter/kinematic viscosity) tells you a lot about how a 1/2" tube and a 2' tube are related regardless of what liquids are pumped through them, and how fast. Dimensionless numbers have been used to build scale ships, floating in (IIRC) acetone to simulate a full size vessel in salt water. While not dimensionless, the parameters that they use demonstrate that engines are "scalable", and that materials science is the limit. Mean Piston speed is similar...one short stroke high revs, one long stroke low revs...Con-rod materials and designs are the limit of mean piston speed. Brake Mean Effective Pressure is an average of the usefulness of the pressure above the piston for a cycle...limited by fuels, ambient pressure and temperature. The small engine does it twice as often as the large (broadly), giving similar power results, and lower torque (power/RPM). The large capacity of the NASCAR engine allows/requires it to run in a range where pushrods work.
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
"It's freaking amazing that a pushrod two-valve motor can be so close to the output of a Formula One engine!" There's a saying: "There's no replacement for displacement." But it's not true. It's just that the 'replacement' comes in the form of tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars in materials and engine development. Another aspect not to be forgotten in the comparison is the weight of both motors: 209 lbs. versus 575 lbs. (almost 3:1)
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
895
Location
PA
Since HP and Torgue always are the same at 5250RPM the engine that makes the best low RPM power is the better engine.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,857
Location
PA
 Originally Posted By: wannafbody
Since HP and Torgue always are the same at 5250RPM the engine that makes the best low RPM power is the better engine.
I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct...
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,527
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: d00df00d
 Originally Posted By: wannafbody
Since HP and Torgue always are the same at 5250RPM the engine that makes the best low RPM power is the better engine.
I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct...
HP and torque cross at 5250RPM. Other than that being factual, I cannot see how somebody can draw any conclusions from it.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,673
Location
'Stralia
The only cross in ftlb and horsepower world. the crossover point in artificial units of measurement means absolutely nothing.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
1,034
Location
GA, USA
 Originally Posted By: d00df00d
 Originally Posted By: wannafbody
...HP and Torgue always are the same at 5250RPM...
I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct...
True, but only when power is measured in horsepower and torque is measured in ft-lbs.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
1,034
Location
GA, USA
Sorry Shannow, I ended up reiterating what you said. Guess I should read the replies more carefully before I hit the keyboard! ;\)
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
18,449
Location
East of IGO
OHC engines have the potential of much higher rpm potential because of the lighter valve train. That is not necessarily better ,I like ohv for passenger car use as it makes a more compact package.
 
Top