2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[xpensive]

machin, you should perhaps have taken my xample last night and given it up, also, do consider what bill shoe wrote;

...
It’s OK if you don’t understand this statement. However, it’s necessary to understand it before having an opinion about the optimum number of gears for a constant power engine.
...

Trolls have become the pest of this otherwise great forum, wannabe-engineerish such with too much time on their hands are worse still, why my heart goes out to Tomba for trying to maintain order under such horrid circumstances.

[machin]

I know mate, but honestly its not that difficult, is it? I blame the marketing people making up such utter rubbish as "Power sells cars, Torque wins races".

I'm allowed to say that as my girlfriend works in marketing. She doesn't understand the power and torque thing either, but bless her, she doesn't even pretend to be interested! when I say "That's my life your talking about" she just says "Get over it!".

[tok-tokkie]

Many thanks Machin. I initiated the discussion and was confused by the implications but had other things I needed to do. Your replies have cleared it up for me.
Certainly steam engines provide full torque at 0 RPM. So do electric motors it seems from the performance of electric motorcycles.

[autogyro]

Yes and all engines, electric steam or theoretical constant power ic engines have a 'sweet spot', usualy one of efficiency.

[ringo]

OK. One more try to explain the power and torque relationship:-

F=mA right?

Lets assume that your car has lots of grip (its not traction limited), and that aero resistance (force) is zero (e.g. low speeds). You'll just have to accept that we don't have any rolling resistance in this eaxmple. (EDIT: and that the drive train is 100% efficient -please bear with it).

The mass is fixed. In order to achieve a given level of acceleration we need to provide a motive Force at the tyre contact patch (the "F" in F=mA).

In order to determine the motive Force at the contact patch at a given speed you can use two methods:-

You take the engine torque at the engine speed necessary to achieve the road speed, you multiply it by the gear ratio and the final drive ratio. You multiply this result by the wheel radius -that gives you the motive force at the tyre contact patch.

OR
You Divide the power by the road speed. (F= Power/Road Speed)

The simple solution is the second method: you don't need to know the gear ratio, the engine speed, or the tyre size. You just need to know the power and the road speed.

Don't believe me?

OK:- 200BHP at 20mph means 16615N at the contact patch.

Now you have a go at getting more force at that contact patch at 20mph using a 200bhp engine and any gear ratio and wheel size you want. You won't be able to.

I'll give you some 200BHP torque values:-
200lbft @ 5250rpm or
400lbft @ 2625rpm or
100lbft @ 10500rpm.

Pick one of them and see if you can get more than 16615N at the contact patch at a road speed of 20mph. You won't be able to do it.

That's the first thing i did to get the wheel forces. Now concerning the power, that is only at a constant speed, that you can make a calculation like that.
What you say about gears being useless is aslo a error, and you never justified it with your graph.
I was going to ask you to clarify what is actually happening on your graph as well, what is this resistance exactly?
Aero ? and where does your car get such an unrealistic down-force from?

Secondly your graph avoids any implication of acceleration. Make your engine with only 200hp and do the graph again.
Your a tricky fellow.
Performance is grip limited because you forced it to be, to avoid the fact that one of your gears could easily well set the car within the grip boundary.

I am being very patient with you here. I will allow you to self destruct.

So please reduce engine power to 200hp, and then use a realistic downforce value. F1 cars do not produce as much down-force as people think. Most of the values are hypothetical with max df settings at 200mph.

[ringo]

The discussion should have ended here really.

That says it all. Constant power or not, more than 1 gear is superior.

[ringo]

machin, you should perhaps have taken my xample last night and given it up, also, do consider what bill shoe wrote;

...
It’s OK if you don’t understand this statement. However, it’s necessary to understand it before having an opinion about the optimum number of gears for a constant power engine.
...

Trolls have become the pest of this otherwise great forum, wannabe-engineerish such with too much time on their hands are worse still, why my heart goes out to Tomba for trying to maintain order under such horrid circumstances.

Leave them be!! Let them self destruct their arguments.
Things have to be set straight. I am not enjoying this, but i gotta do it!

There has been a decline on this forum in terms of actual engineering reasoning. Usually a loose opinion has sufficed for technical depth. My "trolling" has encouraged technical debate, not opinionated banter.

Wannabe engineer...

[machin]

Ringo. Gears are a wonderful thing for an engine which only produces peak power at one speed, as each additional gear allows u to produce peak power at another speed... Higher or lower; u decide.

The beauty of a constant power machine is that it doesn't need a gearbox to do that... It produces the same power at all speeds.

U clearly don't understand power and how it relates to torque, as each u keep mixing the two. I'm sorry about that, but there's nothing more I can say... Please read my explanation above again and try to understand.

[ringo]

Ringo. Gears are a wonderful thing for an engine which only produces peak power at one speed, as each additional gear allows u to produce peak power at another speed... Higher or lower; u decide.

The beauty of a constant power machine is that it doesn't need a gearbox to do that... It produces the same power at all speeds.

U clearly don't understand power and how it relates to torque, as each u keep mixing the two. I'm sorry about that, but there's nothing more I can say... Please read my explanation above again and try to understand.

No sir, you don't!
Gears produce power?!!

There is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning.

Ready for the death blow to your arguments now?
Fun time is up.

This reminds me of the engine mounted to the tub thread.

I notice you are ignoring the request for a 200hp car that revs to 8000 rpm.

[machin]

Ok : gears allow u to Transmit that power at more than one road speed, ok, understand yet?

[machin]

I'm on oxford street in London. No graphs Til monday. U do it. U might learn something.

[xpensive]

Tomba, for crying out loud, a troll or two can be fun for a while, but this is getting out of hands, don't you think?

[WhiteBlue]

We have already learned that the new engines will necessarily have gearboxes. It is also clear that you cannot have unlimited torque even if boost pressure isn't limited in the formula. At one point the weight penalty from the engine and the gearbox is simply too big to be practical. Massive low rev torque would also reduce the efficiency of the turbo. You will not raise torque in such a way that you get these engines down to a rev range of 1,000-4,000 where you can enjoy maximum stratification benefits.

I don't believe that they will be running over 10.000 rpm very much either if you can run leaner, with less friction and better efficiency at lower rpm. So the legal rev limit of 12,000 rpm may be far up in the constant power region of the engine. From these boundary conditions if follows that the primary rpm operating range of the engine may be somewhere in the middle between 3,000 and 9,000 rpm. If that is true it would make sense to pick a sensible number of gears and be done with it.

[xpensive]

Good save WB, while I have admit that my idea of a 12k was more or less guesswork, though it had some bearing from previous xperiences from similar applications. However, I have a feeling that we have not seen the entire rule-package yrt?

[ringo]

I'm on oxford street in London. No graphs Til monday. U do it. U might learn something.

condescending talk,.. you're in denial. Anyway a later time, I can't do that now, i'm using a different PC.

White blue another thing is the boost temperature. This is why i think they will run then engine at the full 12,000 rpm in most cases.
The constant power stuff only works if the temperatures can be controlled.
Sizing of inter-cooler has a direct effect on aerodynamics, as well so they might not want to cater for max power at say 6000rpm or even 7000. The air will be too hot.