naturally aspirated 3.0l V12 by todays standards

[eduonkhl]

What do you think would be possible to achive with todays standards with a 3.0l V12 naturally aspirated engine without limitations? Could it be possible to go well beyond the 23.000 rpm range? And how much power do you think it might produce? Also since there are no limitations, how light would the engine be if you can use materials not allowed in the past?

Please write your suggestions below.

[coaster]

I remember with the V8 / V10 technology that at a point raising rpm was overcome by friction, 1100hp 27k?

[proteus]

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.

[ME4ME]

I think it's quite fundamental to your question to define how long the engine must last. Only qualifying? Or a race, or several races.

Edit:
@Proteus, nah I don't think so. 1300bhp will be no issue, didn't some qualifying engines delivered that in the past?

[toraabe]

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

[DiogoBrand]

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 how would that mean that 3.0l V12 engines are unreliable in general?
Also this is obviously a technical speculation, not some make-a-wish thread, since we know they won't get rid of those vacuum cleaner engines that soon, if at all.
Personally, if I were to bring a layout back, it would be the V10's. Not that I don't like that very clean whine of the V12's, even today Ferrari's exhaust noise from 95 makes me have goosebumps, but I just like that 'dirty' V10 sound better.

[Pierce89]

What do you think would be possible to achive with todays standards with a 3.0l V12 naturally aspirated engine without limitations? Could it be possible to go well beyond the 23.000 rpm range? And how much power do you think it might produce? Also since there are no limitations, how light would the engine be if you can use materials not allowed in the past?

Please write your suggestions below.

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

[gruntguru]

IIRC Cosworth were predicting 22k+ rpm with further development of Al-Be pistons. That was a bigger cylinder than the 3 litre V12 concept so I would think 24k back then and perhaps 25-26k with todays technology.

[gruntguru]

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?

[eduonkhl]

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 how would that mean that 3.0l V12 engines are unreliable in general?
Also this is obviously a technical speculation, not some make-a-wish thread, since we know they won't get rid of those vacuum cleaner engines that soon, if at all.
Personally, if I were to bring a layout back, it would be the V10's. Not that I don't like that very clean whine of the V12's, even today Ferrari's exhaust noise from 95 makes me have goosebumps, but I just like that 'dirty' V10 sound better.

Sound is a subjective thing but most people forget that the V12s had a way lower rpm limit than the later V10. So i think a V12 revving even higher than the old V10 would be even a more dramatic experience!

[eduonkhl]

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.

[eduonkhl]

I think it's quite fundamental to your question to define how long the engine must last. Only qualifying? Or a race, or several races.

Edit:
@Proteus, nah I don't think so. 1300bhp will be no issue, didn't some qualifying engines delivered that in the past?

Well days changed and the teams don't have severel engines with them for one weekend sadly. I still would like to have those days back since I think resources ain't a problem for most F1 teams. Also i'm against those fuel regulation rules. I think fuel is probably one of the least expensive thing on the car and every team would probably give a --- about how much fuel the car consumes. So yeah i would say you can use 1 engine for each day (training, qualy and race).

[countersteer]

IIRC Cosworth were predicting 22k+ rpm with further development of Al-Be pistons. That was a bigger cylinder than the 3 litre V12 concept so I would think 24k back then and perhaps 25-26k with todays technology.

Given development of materials, what new technologies have been developed that would raise the rpm limit? Material science would provide us with stronger lighter materials. What other technologies have been developed or are we just talking about incremental development of existing technology over time?

[Tommy Cookers]

a very high rpm engine can only be as good as its speed and consistency of combustion allows
friction rise with rpm will not be a problem if combustion is suitable, if not people start blaming mechanical or gas friction
the V12 cylinder size would tend to have (relatively) a more favourable valve area, so less gas friction, than the V10 or V8 size

current DI (denied to N/A F1) might be the secret of combustion
if conditions for spontaneous combustion are produced (after a spark ?) injection rate might be managed on a microsecond basis
to drive combustion rate as fast as the engine can tolerate throughout

and a recovery turbine would be useful, no backpressure is needed
though it might somewhat weaken exhaust pulse tuning

[OO7]

Don't forget rotary valves in these estimations.