Technical Regulations for 2009-2015

[marcush.]

unfortunatelly the 16V head was only available for the dolomite I4 so the stag could only be build in a V8 24V version...has anyone build something as weird as that?..I had a TR7 Convertible a long time ago ..as it broke a piston .I learned a bit about this particular piece of engineering..

[aral]

unfortunatelly the 16V head was only available for the dolomite I4 so the stag could only be build in a V8 24V version...has anyone build something as weird as that?..I had a TR7 Convertible a long time ago ..as it broke a piston .I learned a bit about this particular piece of engineering..

Yes, three valves per cylindere were not uncommon. Two inlets and one exhaust. You call the Dolomite , 14. Never heard of it as that. There was a Dolomite 1500, 1850 and then there was the Sprint, with the 16 valve head. Not a bad engine, but overheating was aleways a problem, as with the Stag. Had a 1500 once, and also a Stag.

[marcush.]

sorry foul wording..
Dolomite sprint was the 16V engine..

I meant stag V8 with one bank 2 valve and one bank as 16V... thats weird..

[donskar]

sorry foul wording..
Dolomite sprint was the 16V engine..

I meant stag V8 with one bank 2 valve and one bank as 16V... thats weird..

Do I understand you to say that the Stag V8 had two totally different head designs -- one with 8 valves and the other with 16?

On the same engine?

As a mechanic back in the 1960s I learned a great deal of disrespect for English auto engineering, but that one is really way out there!

[marcush.]

sorry foul wording..
Dolomite sprint was the 16V engine..

I meant stag V8 with one bank 2 valve and one bank as 16V... thats weird..

Do I understand you to say that the Stag V8 had two totally different head designs -- one with 8 valves and the other with 16?

On the same engine?

As a mechanic back in the 1960s I learned a great deal of disrespect for English auto engineering, but that one is really way out there!

again..not the best words i chose..the Dolomite 16V engine is based on the V8 stag engine.As for the Stag theres only 8V heads ..but the dolomite shares borespacing bolt pattern etc you could actually mount one 16V head on a stag engine..I´m not aware if someone really did it.sorry .

[WhiteBlue]

Since when is McLaren producing F1 engines. I guess, it´s easy to have an opinion on it, when you are not the one, who need to built the engines.

McLaren is automotive since they have split with MB to pursue their own sports car brand.

[747heavy]

Since when is McLaren producing F1 engines. I guess, it´s easy to have an opinion on it, when you are not the one, who need to built the engines.

McLaren is automotie since they have split with MB to pursue their own sports car brand.

I did not question, that they are an automotive manufacturer.
But AFAIK they neither produce a F1 engine nor the engine for their road car themself.
Why did they not choose to build their new road car with an turbo charged I4 engine?
They would have more F1 technology transfere and another USP - in contrast to Ferrari.

[godlameroso]

Because getting 600ps from your average 2.0 4 banger takes roughly about 32psi, which means you need a hell of a blower, which means stupid turbo lag. Your engine would need to be able to rev to 9,000rpm to have any sort of usable power band. You wouldn't hit full boost till around 4,500rpm, and that's using every trick of the trade to reduce turbo lag.

I still think it's better to use a 3.8 V8 twin turbo to make 600ps than it is to use a 6.3L V12.

[aral]

Because getting 600ps from your average 2.0 4 banger takes roughly about 32psi, which means you need a hell of a blower, which means stupid turbo lag. Your engine would need to be able to rev to 9,000rpm to have any sort of usable power band. You wouldn't hit full boost till around 4,500rpm, and that's using every trick of the trade to reduce turbo lag.

I still think it's better to use a 3.8 V8 twin turbo to make 600ps than it is to use a 6.3L V12.

Turbo lag is a thing of the past! There was no problem with lag, in the previous turbo era. Constant pressure with electronic control of revs eliminates it. And as for a 3.8 V8 twin turbo only producing 600 bhp. Are you serious? The old 1.5 single turbo fours, were giving 1500BHP.

[strad]

At Goodwood a few years ago, they had the old Audi rally car and they were saying they had to dial it back for the event because in race form it put out something like 4 bar at IDLE. There was no lag because it was always under boost...I don't think on the track, that we have had turbo lag problems since the Renault tea kettle days.
I'm still voting for an inline four,,but I repeat that I can see Bernie not wanting that cause it smacks of IRL...I mean how long would it be before Honda came and dominated? hahahahaha

[Holm86]

4 bars at idle? dont believe that....

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=385994

There seems to be trouble brewing for the 2011 KERS systems. MBHPE Ltd. wants to charge €6 m instead of the agreed one million for their system. Either the wording of the FOTA agreement is very ambiguous or the engine company is not party to that agreement. At the moment is looks like teams can add a 25 kg Renault, Ferrari or Williams KERS to their Merc engines or pay five millions more for a 21 kg Merc KERS.

Merc are also the obstacle to higher KERS energy and longer KERS boost times in 2011 it appears.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 47296.html

[xpensive]

Because getting 600ps from your average 2.0 4 banger takes roughly about 32psi, which means you need a hell of a blower, which means stupid turbo lag. Your engine would need to be able to rev to 9,000rpm to have any sort of usable power band. You wouldn't hit full boost till around 4,500rpm, and that's using every trick of the trade to reduce turbo lag.

I still think it's better to use a 3.8 V8 twin turbo to make 600ps than it is to use a 6.3L V12.

Turbo lag is a thing of the past! There was no problem with lag, in the previous turbo era. Constant pressure with electronic control of revs eliminates it. And as for a 3.8 V8 twin turbo only producing 600 bhp. Are you serious? The old 1.5 single turbo fours, were giving 1500BHP.

At 9000 Rpm, 32 psi (1.2 Bar boost) for 600 Hp from 2.0 litres sounds about right, regardless of number of cylinders.
Turbo-lag obviously becomes more of a problem with a higher boost, why the 1.5s of the eighties were quite terrible,
there is an interesting description by Gerhard Berger on how it was to master a 1300 Hp BMW with 4.5 Bar of boost in qualifying, floor it before the corner and hope to get it right.

With 3.8 liters and 6000 rpm, a 0.5-0.7 Bar boost should be enough for 600 Hp, why the MP4-12C have no problems.

[tok-tokkie]

Going back to the Carnot efficiency post. It is based on the maximum & minimum temperatures of the cycle in Kelvin. The problem is absolute zero is not available (well it is in space?) so mechanical engineering always looks bad because it runs at 30% Carnot efficiency compared to electrical engineering running at close to 100%. We were taught to calculate available energy efficiency based on the minimum temperature at 20°C; then the mechanical efficiency was quite respectable.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_eff ... Efficiency

There was a comment about it not being possible to exceed 100% efficiency. Doing Carnot on refrigeration gives was over 100% efficiency. That is what a heat pump does too. So they refer to the COP (coefficient of performance)which runs at between 3 & 4 = 300% to 400% efficiency = energy out compared to energy in.

'-------------------------------------

When the new engines come in with turbos it means the ram air inlet above the drivers head is no longer required. That will contribute towards a reduction in drag & will be favoured by the efficiency drive.

[strad]

4 bars at idle? dont believe that....

Seemed huge to me as well but that's what one of the ex drivers,,I don't remember for sure which said and if you ever saw them run in anger it's believable ,,I don't remember the total boost but it was equally shocking.