Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by WrongWayWad » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:17:29


Quote:



>>> Current engines are old hat. Useless to any one but F1, and a the
>>> very few who can afford supercars. But even those guys are going
>>> for smaller, greener, intelligent engines.

>>> Face it, you are old and don't like change.

>> Awa--- and AC:

>> I must agree with your AC's second point ;-)

>> But claims of engineering "relevance" have never persuaded me.  I
>> didn't see any 2.4 litre V-8s filling the high street.  For that
>> matter 50 years ago the lovely 1.5 V-8 Climax was not 'relevant' to
>> anything.

> No, and F1 was not as expensive as it is now.

>> With current cylinder and head architecture, and crankshaft throws
>> not much greater than a camshaft, I don't contemplate manufacturers
>> learning anything as a result of building an F1 engine.  Nor do I
>> contemplate that the new V-6's will cost a penny less than this
>> year's engines.   Would manufacturers possibly find "relevance" in a
>> 1.4 litre aspirated straight-4 motor?

> Marketing? Imagine that Golf GTI being marketed with an F1 derived
> engine. Imagine Jeremy Clarkson getting all e***d about it.

> Cost wise, they will be cheaper over time. That how business works.
> Its spreads costs.

> 1.4? Yes.

> Crank Cam? That just reads like a silly excuse.

The notion that an F1 engine will look anything like a production car's is
dumb.  You don't rev anything on the street to 18,000 RPM.  They might learn
things about materials or reliability of components, but never that this
engine is a prototype for a street car.
 
 
 

Bernie showing more signs of going ga-ga

Post by Bruce Houl » Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:26:01

Quote:




> >>> Current engines are old hat. Useless to any one but F1, and a the

> >>> very few who can afford supercars. But even those guys are going

> >>> for smaller, greener, intelligent engines.

> >>> Face it, you are old and don't like change.

> >> Awa--- and AC:

> >> I must agree with your AC's second point ;-)

> >> But claims of engineering "relevance" have never persuaded me.  I

> >> didn't see any 2.4 litre V-8s filling the high street.  For that

> >> matter 50 years ago the lovely 1.5 V-8 Climax was not 'relevant' to

> >> anything.

> > No, and F1 was not as expensive as it is now.

> >> With current cylinder and head architecture, and crankshaft throws

> >> not much greater than a camshaft, I don't contemplate manufacturers

> >> learning anything as a result of building an F1 engine.  Nor do I

> >> contemplate that the new V-6's will cost a penny less than this

> >> year's engines.   Would manufacturers possibly find "relevance" in a

> >> 1.4 litre aspirated straight-4 motor?

> > Marketing? Imagine that Golf GTI being marketed with an F1 derived

> > engine. Imagine Jeremy Clarkson getting all e***d about it.

> > Cost wise, they will be cheaper over time. That how business works.

> > Its spreads costs.

> > 1.4? Yes.

> > Crank Cam? That just reads like a silly excuse.

> The notion that an F1 engine will look anything like a production car's is

> dumb.  You don't rev anything on the street to 18,000 RPM.  They might learn

> things about materials or reliability of components, but never that this

> engine is a prototype for a street car.

I can't see why not, at least for more sporty/expensive cars. Making a few million of them a year would certainly bring the F1 engine price down.

It's 15,000 RPM for the 2014 engines, not 18,000.

If they make 750 HP at 15,000 RPM then you should be able to downrate them to 300 HP at 6000 RPM and have them last essentially forever. WRXs and Evos have been doing that from 2.0 engines for a long time, so it's not outlandish for a 1.6 to do it. You'd want to play with the torque curve, but that's just valve etc timing.