On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:46:21 -0000, "Dave Baker" <
Nu...@null.com>
wrote:
>After reading some of the gibberish in the "2014 fuel flow and low down
>torque" thread I thought I'd better post what's really happening with this
>engine in a new thread rather than let any comments get lost in the
>squabbling.
>
>The mandated engine is a single turbo V6 of 1600cc capacity and a maximum
>80mm bore size. This in turn sets the stroke at 53mm if they use the full
>bore size allowed and the bore stroke ratio at 1.51 which is not very
>oversquare for modern F1 engines. In fact it's not an unusual ratio for
>standard road car engines and motorbike ones.
>
>Fuel flow is limited to a maximum rate of 100kg/hr from 10500 rpm upwards to
>the 15000 rpm rev limit and below 10500 it decreases in a linear fashion
>with rpm down to idle where there is just enough fuel flow to keep the
>engine running.
>
>They should be able to achieve 450 bhp very easily. Whether they can get 510
>or even beat that is more doubtful but I suspect that their research will
>have valuable knock on effects for road engine design in due course. I'll be
>surprised if they haven't hit 500 bhp by the time the engines need to be
>used.
Nice piece of work, thank you.
If this was an attempt by the governing body to make things a bit
less expensive, they should know, by now, that all rules do is
redefine where indecent amounts of money are spent.
I think they should set a displacement limit (turbocharged), a maxim
width, a maximum length, a minimum weight limit, certain driver
protection standards, and a spec ti(y)re supplier, no wings or visible
aero at all, and let 'em go at it.
Bill Smith