naturally aspirated 3.0l V12 by todays standards

[strad]

Why back to old heavy unreliable junk from early 90?. How often didn't Alesi's Ferrari break down. Mostly every race. Forget it.

And what say's we would build those engines using old techniques and materials?
The old Ferrari engine room was miles from todays space age facilities and materials.

[J.A.W.]

I have no actuall idea, but if Toyota was able to rev their V8 engine to 20k RPM in 2006 i think it would be possible to crank them up to 23k with todays technology.
Power output? More than 1300 BHP for sure. Imagine a V12 3.0L F1 car produced with a budget of 400 million euros, optimised and not limited with restrictions. The racecar would be probably impossible to drive arround a standard track without serious computer assistance, because driver would be too slow to react (in case of driving on the cars limit). Driver would be more a burden than an asset. Preprogrammed autonomus drive would be needed to achieve maximum performance. Not to mention forces on drivers body.

We are talking about the engine power on it's own but yeah if there were no regulations on the car itself it would be undrivable for sure. But 1300+ bhp shouldn't be a problem to handle from the worlds best drivers. Also we had 1400+ bhp on the turbo engines in the 80s. But the most notable thing to say is that they lasted only for a few minutes and had huge turbo lag. That's why I find it that interesting what would be possible today with a naturally aspirated engine with unimaginable trottle response. And i'm sure it would blow your ears without protection.

Or, if it was a 'formula libre' - based on a 3.0L N/A mill, then a 2T could provide the exciting high-frequency sound pulses, but still making the required power output - at far fewer rpm/super-costly recip' parts..

[Pierce89]

75 kilos, 1200 hp @ 22000 rpm.
I think that's a fairly realistic estimate. Thermal efficiency probably in the 32-33% range.

Thermal efficiency? - What's that?

I have to admit that is funny in the context of where we're at now.

[toraabe]

75 kilos, 1200 hp @ 22000 rpm.
I think that's a fairly realistic estimate. Thermal efficiency probably in the 32-33% range.

Thermal efficiency? - What's that?

I have to admit that is funny in the context of where we're at now.

I cannot find one 1 reason why we should revert to non turbo engines ?
Much better how it is today, and I really like the deeper note from the V6 engines.
If you want big non turbo engines, watch Nascar

[eduonkhl]

Thermal efficiency? - What's that?

I have to admit that is funny in the context of where we're at now.

I cannot find one 1 reason why we should revert to non turbo engines ?
Much better how it is today, and I really like the deeper note from the V6 engines.
If you want big non turbo engines, watch Nascar

You get rid of the unnecessary weight of the hybrid system and turbo. Because of that you can have better handling and besides that the turbo engines sound like ---. Also it's not acceptable that they raise the minimum weight of the car again this year. It was already way too high, F1 cars shouldn't weight more than 605kg with driver and lubricants included.

[stevesingo]

You get rid of the unnecessary weight of the hybrid system and turbo. Because of that you can have better handling and besides that the turbo engines sound like ---. Also it's not acceptable that they raise the minimum weight of the car again this year. It was already way too high, F1 cars shouldn't weight more than 605kg with driver and lubricants included.

Then you add in a longer engine and 30% larger fuel tank which will not exactly help with the handling and drive away the very companies who have the budget to develop a 25k rpm 3.0 NA engine-the manufacturers,

It wasn't always better, and as technology is added to the cars, weight will inevitably go up.

[pgfpro]

75 kilos, 1200 hp @ 22000 rpm.
I think that's a fairly realistic estimate. Thermal efficiency probably in the 32-33% range.

Thermal efficiency? - What's that?

Way to funny!!!

[toraabe]

Ok Diesel next

[eduonkhl]

You get rid of the unnecessary weight of the hybrid system and turbo. Because of that you can have better handling and besides that the turbo engines sound like ---. Also it's not acceptable that they raise the minimum weight of the car again this year. It was already way too high, F1 cars shouldn't weight more than 605kg with driver and lubricants included.

Then you add in a longer engine and 30% larger fuel tank which will not exactly help with the handling and drive away the very companies who have the budget to develop a 25k rpm 3.0 NA engine-the manufacturers,

It wasn't always better, and as technology is added to the cars, weight will inevitably go up.

The longer engine shouldn't make a difference if you design the car arround that it would still be mid engined with a very low center of gravity. Also why would you need a larger fuel tank? You really think the teams would give a damn how much fuel the car uses if you could just simply refuel?

[proteus]

Why back to old heavy unreliable junk from early 90?. How often didn't Alesi's Ferrari break down. Mostly every race. Forget it.

And thats the reason we are looking at the most boring era of F1...Unbeliveable reliable cars, which caused introduction of DRS, strange penalty rules, 10 drivers getting points and so on and so on....

In 01 and 04 Mclaren was absolutely terribly unreliable, but did i lose interest in watching F1, even when both cars for which i cheered blowed their engines in the race?? No. I was watching every single race, getting goosebumps and cold sweat every time when waiting to lights go off.

Until last 10 years F1 was a perfect mix of overtaking, spectacle and mechanical breakdowns. Saying its great to see almost 90% of cars finishing a race is silly and quite frankly a bit stupid. with often mechanical breakdowns and driver incidents minows and small fishes get the chance to score points which they desperatly need.
With DRS nonsense and 80-90% of cars finishing every race this is practicly impossible which means much worse competitevness of different individual teams and chances for them to achieve something...

[strad]

you get a thumbs up for that one

[J.A.W.]

you get a thumbs up for that one http://s22.photobucket.com/user/STRAD2/ ... 1.jpg.html

Who gets a "thumbs up..." where - & for what?
Why not utilize the quote & reputation functions instead, for clarity - which the forum provides - as intended..

I do agree that the super-costly/high-efficiency/mega-durable M-B 'steam-roller' approach has resulted
in surely unintended consequences - esp' given the tightly prescribed engine rules, currently in force..

[strad]

JAW : who gets a "thumbs up..." where - & for what?

Well since his was the last post, obviously proteus .

Why not utilize the quote & reputation functions instead, for clarity - which the forum provides - as intended..

Well JAW: You're not supposed to upvote simply because you agree with someone.

[gold333]

Why the reduced capacity 3.0L engine?

As far as I know and correct me if I'm wrong, but the only 3.0L capacity V12 was the 1995 Ferrari 412T2.

That came after the car castrations of mid 1994-1995 which last until today.

In my opinion, the last "true" V12 was the 3.5L V12 of 1994 (Ferrari 412T1).

But then again F1 cars were castrated after Imola 1994; no more flat bottom (lasted until today), hole in airbox, narrow track (lasted until today), grooved tyres (lasted until 2008), no front wing vortex generators (lasted until today), reduced engine cubic capacity (lasted until today and ongoing)

[gruntguru]

Don't forget rotary valves in these estimations.

IIRC the Bishop rotary valve in V10 F1 configuration strikes a hurdle at about 23,000 rpm - the intake tract can't be shortened enough for correct wave action above that speed. Of course a 3L V12 would have smaller cylinders so the rotary valves would be scaled down and a shorter tract obtained. 25+K????