V8 F1 Cosworth engine 20,000 Rpm's video.

Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
783
Location
Austin Texas
A 90 degreeg V8 does have better tertiary balance, at the cost of a crankshaft that weights at least twice as much and a bit of boxing horizontally across the centerline of the engine, and a burble in the 'note' of the engine. A 180 degree 'flat' plane crank, is lighter, stronger, and does not have the boxing moment that the balanced V8 has. The (properly balanced) flat plane V8 has just over 4 times the vibrational energy of the (properly balanced) 90 degree V8. Beyond the savings in weight and rotational inertia, what is gained is even intake intervals and even exhaust intervals that make it much easier to extract power from the harmonics of the intake and exhaust processes. Nobody driving around in a V8 Ferrari complains about the slight loss of smoothness of their flat plane V8, no, they notice the glorious sounds that eminate from the engine bay. In the powerband, and F1 engine is between 107 and 113 percent efficient in the volumetric department! You can't do this at the RPM levels of F1 with a 90 degree crank V8; however, you can do this with the RPM levels of NASCAR engines by threading one of the header tubes from each side under the dry sump. The V10s were balanced with balance shafts turing at 2X the RPMs of the engine. This sapped power (maybe 30-50 HP) that could have been liberated towards thrust if the V10 engines had better inherent balance. So the solution here, was "not efficient" in terms of converting the energy of the burning gasoline into thrust for the vehicle.
 
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
113
Location
appalachia
Well, I stand corrected. I was going on an old memory as far as the engine balances were concerned. No one will ever understand F1 logic. I give you Indy this year. I can't understand how the US can't produce a proper F1 road course.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
699
Location
Texas
Uh, the problem wasn't Michelin, rather it was Toyota for running low tire pressures that Ford taught them. Anyways, it was just a powerplay against Max; Bernie was all for putting in a chicane. Max at home (and not at the race) said "No." Maybe now with Scott Speed in F1, Americans will watch left-right racing instead of those boring ovals--I enjoy watching Nascrap at Sonoma.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
530
Location
Deer Park, Washington
Toyota's fault? I don't think so. If that were the case don't you think Michelin would of mandated a minimum air pressure to the rest of the teams? As far as changing the track, the right decision was made. You can't change the the rules because some teams can't cope with the conditions. Michelin had a chance to bring the correct tires and they chose not to. It's not like Michelin has not raced there before. If it wasn't Michelin's fault, why are they paying for the refund?
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
783
Location
Austin Texas
Michelin has accepted responcibility for this debacle and agreed to refund the moneys the spectators spent on tickets. I, thereby, humbly submit, that Michelin was the failing component and that the teams are not to blame.
 
Top