2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[machin]

Auto, It sounds like you don't understand the relationship between power and torque; I'll explain if you want:-

If you have 650bhp at 12,000 rpm the engine is putting out about 284 lbft. If you then put that through a 16:1 gear ratio the power is still 650bhp (minus a bit due to inefficiences, but we'll ignore that for now) and an output torque of 4544lb ft at 750rpm. If the tyre diameter is 2 feet that's a force at the contact patch of approx 20500 Neutons, and a road speed of 23.9 m/s

If we now take a constant power engine, giving 650BHP, and attach it directly to the same wheels, but instead of turning the engine at 12,000rpm we slow it down to 750rpm it will still put out 650bhp (it is constant power remember!), and in order to do so it must produce a torque of 4544lbft. On a diameter of 2 feet that's approx 20500 Neutons of force (at the same 23.9m/s road speed) -exactly the same as the situation when you used a gearbox to step the same power down from 12,000rpm. (infact, as there is no geabrox in this example you might actually have more force available as there is no gear adding inefficiencies!).

EDIT:- Since the wheel speed and force at the contact patch is the same in both examples one will not be likely to wheel spin any more than the other -despite the wildly different engine speed and the fact that there is no gear ratio in the second example.

(FYI -I still think it will be better to produce an engine which isn't constant power, and have 6 or 7 gear ratios as I believe the package will be lighter and will allow the engine to sit further forward -improving weight distribution).

[autogyro]

It would be a lot easier than building one that puts out 650bhp at 750 rpm.

[rjsa]

All this considering FIA will allow a gloves off fight with no limits super charging to the point of making a 1.6 engine deliver a flat power curve.

Guess what?

It won't happen - just like the high revs race was cut short - there will be heavy regulation on the supercharged engines.


It wouldn't be road relevant anyway, and that's the point of the L4 1.6 T, right?

[tok-tokkie]

But Machin it would accelerate MUCH faster with the gearbox. With the 16:1 gearbox the torque 4544 * 16 ft lbs at 750RPM. So the acceleration would be 16 x higher. Same amount of work per second coming from the engine. So what happens?

[machin]

tok-tokkie; no, read it again:-

If you have 650bhp at 12,000 rpm the engine is putting out about 284 lbft. If you then put that through a 16:1 gear ratio the power is still 650bhp (minus a bit due to inefficiences, but we'll ignore that for now) [but now has]an output torque of 4544lbft at 750rpm

-the torque at the wheels is the same in both situations (in the geared example with the engine at 12000rpm the torque at the engine is 284lbft, multiply it by 16 and the torque is 4454lbft; the same 4454lbft if the 650bhp is produced at an engine speed of 750rpm).

[machin]

It would be a lot easier than building one that puts out 650bhp at 750 rpm.

I totally agree- and (probably) lighter and allow greater separation between the diff and the engine. But it won't accelerate faster, or be more/less prone to wheelspin.

[ringo]

Basically, Power = Torque x Speed

If power is constant, and speed decreases, torque has to increase. You cannot improve the rate of work done by a machine which is truly constant power by introducing a gear ratio.

It is far from that simple.
True you cannot improve the rate of 'potential' work by introducing a gear ratio.
You can however make available work at that gear ratio possible.

It's going to take a while for them to understand that 1 gear is a disadvantage to more in terms of ratio.
More is always better in the case of acceleration and engine speed control.

The fact that an engine has a constant power output is a dead giveaway.
If that very same engine has 1 gear alone, with a 1.00:1 ratio, then a clone of that very same engine has an additional gear of 1.50:1. The engine with more gears will accelerate faster in the lower gear and still has the advantage of being able to get the same top speed of the engine with the single gear when it changes up.
It's difficult why people find it hard to believe.

It's like 2 riders of equal power, one riding a bike with only a top gear and the other riding the bike using all 21 speeds. The 21 speed rider will need less effort to accelerate.

[machin]

Ringo... I'm sorry you're wrong on this:-

The typical person on a bike has has a very peaky power curve, this is why the 21 speeds gives you an acceleration advantage -because it allows you to produce that power at a range of different road speeds. A professional cyclist will always ride at a cadence of approx 100rpm because that is where he produces the most power, you then use the gearbox to change the road speed at which that power is created.

You can't create energy from somewhere just by adding a gear ratio.

I can't think of another way of explaining it than that....

[autogyro]

But you can apply that energy over a smaller range of road speed.

[rjsa]

This thread has now degraded into the PowerXTorque argument, known to last forever.

In case you are willing to save the typing: http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s ... wer+torque

[ringo]

Ringo... I'm sorry you're wrong on this:-

The typical person on a bike has has a very peaky power curve, this is why the 21 speeds gives you an acceleration advantage -because it allows you to produce that power at a range of different road speeds. A professional cyclist will always ride at a cadence of approx 100rpm because that is where he produces the most power, you then use the gearbox to change the road speed at which that power is created.

You can't create energy from somewhere just by adding a gear ratio.

I can't think of another way of explaining it than that....

I was speaking hypothetically that a person produces constant power.

The 21 speed doesn't allow you to produce power. Your power is actually being produced irrespective, but the pedals are just moving slowly becuase of the ground resistance due to the inertia of the bike and the rider's weight.

If an object had zero inertia, your theory would be right. Since the engine's acceleration would be constant, with no resistance to degrade it.
It would cover the full range of road speed from minimum to maximum rev.

For 7th gear you get more ground speed for the same rev range. Say from 2000 to 3000rpm you get a ground speed change of about 10m/s.
In the case of first gear it only gives a change of 3m/s.
Following this logic of constant power, we would say, hey the higher gear gains speed much quicker!

However this ignores the inertial forces of the rotating parts, the wheels and the mass of the car, and will only happen with the wheels of the ground and with massless gears and wheels etc.

When the mass of the car is factored, then you realize something.

The higher gear has the lowest acceleration. The power is still there, but the torque isn't.
The gears' purpose is to multiply torque. Torque and acceleration go hand in hand.

Imagine having one really long gear. Yes you have constant power, but so what? The car next to you has the gears! You could be making 4 times the power at 2000rpm, but he's going match and beat you with accelerative torque, while you chug along waiting for the speed to pick up.

[ringo]

considering all this, it is possible to make a compromise on # of the gears, to reduce the weight and length of the car. But then again the torque delivery will be higher and you might need to put some meat on the gears and shafts.
It's a balancing act, now imagine what the teams have to go through to find optimum sweet spots in all the different technologies and innovations that we so unwittingly throw at them to put on the car in a matter of months.

[machin]

I think we're on the same wavlength. I think the ideal situation is a lighter engine with gears too. But if you could make an engine with the same weight/inertia then you can't improve a constant speed engine with gears.

On the power x torque debate:-

Power tells you how much work an engine does in a given time. Torque is meaningless unless you quote a speed: Here's an example:-

A cyclist can produce about 80lbft of torque just by standing on the pedals and can have 21 gears, its also very light... a 600cc sports bike produces about 53lbft max and only has 6 or 7 gears and weighs a lot more.... and yet the sportsbike accelerates much quicker.. why? Because acceeleration is determined by power, not torque. The sports bike produces its torque at a much higher speed. Power = Torque x Speed. Hence power is what determines performance.

A bike with 21 speeds can accelerate quicker than one with one speed (all else being equal) because he can summon up his peak power at 21 different speeds (hopefully nicely spread throughout his normal road speeds).

But, if your engine can give constant power you don't need the gears -you can already summon your peak power at any road speed.....

[autogyro]

Teams will go for the maximum number of gear ratios the regulations allow.
Unfortunately they will still be useing an inefficient layshaft geartrain that drags all the gears not in use around in a bath of oil.
This fact will be conveniently ignored as the gearbox producers spend millions on trick syncro gadgets that achieve practicaly nothing other than to improve reliability during rapid gear shifts, equaly achieved with simple manualy operated dog clutches.
The FIA may even allow them to make the geartrain even less efficient by building in dual shafts or even dual clutches, originaly developed to bring performance gearboxes to drivers incapable of changing gears properly themselves.
IMO a number of steps backward.

Oh and thanks for the gear cascades ringo, I have been driven nearly insane with those b---dy things.

[machin]

Indeed Auto: Ideally I want a really light engine that might well be peaky, and therefore I want a gearbox with lots of gears that lets me produce that power at any concievable road speed without wasting time having to actually change gear..... I wonder....

Ooooo a cvt!!!!