87daddyformula

What set up would be able to yield me the rev capabilities that F1 cars have...maybe not to the same extent but at least to a 10G red line!?

RedFirebird

A big wallet....

And why the **** would want to rev that high anyway?

87daddyformula

I know how hi they rev...I just want to get that sound and the extra room on the power band. Theres gotta be some set up out there that will yield semi F1 Rpm numbers without busting the wallet. As far as I can tell this is one of the only things on these boards that hasn't been explored.

RedFirebird

Its been explored many times and in addition to the ridiculous cost, all the compromises (good luck driving that thing on the street lol), and longetivity (or the lack there of) usually do in that idea in most rational peoples' minds. You're talking about breaking some major bread on a top-notch valve train and a bottom end that can take that kind of abuse before you even piece together a heads/cam/intake package that will even let you rev that high. And who cares if you can rev to 10K when you can throw a couple turbos on an sbc to make more power at 5000 while retaining a smooth idle while getting 20 mpg, not to mention it might last longer than a spin around the block. If you really like insane revs, get a honda.

fast86z28

This isnt exactly whati would do to a street car either, but the guy was just tryin to think of something that not very many people have or do, no need to tell him to buy a honda, that should be the last advice givin to any1 on this site, im not trying to be an *** and i know its not very realistic but it is kinda cool to think about...just think about pullin up next to a ***** and revvin higher than him , anyways im just ranting so ill shut up now...

NTChrist

Well, the 19,050 RPM is the record for highest revving F1 engine right now. Set by the Williams BMW team.

What you'll need, as far as an engine goes, is the lightest reciprocating mass possible.

F1 pistons are wafer thin, the crank is unbelievably light, con rods are thinner than you would think possible, and all set to tolerances that are UNATTAINABLE by normal standards.

A recent issue of F1 racing toured a Renault engine assy plant for F1 engines, and a writer helped to build one of Renault's 2001 (old) F1 engines. The workshop was more laboratory than workshop. The checking, rechecking and absolute attention to detail is not possible by us average Joes. F1 engine building has been said to be more like fine watchmaking, rather than engine building.

Keep in mind that these engines are meant to last a single race. With all their titanium parts, they only last a few hours in a race situation. It is always a trade off between reliability and horsepower/peak RPM.

So, in short, you would need/have 3 things to build an F1 like engine. 1) Unreliablity. 2) LOADS (were talking nearly a hundred thousand dollars) of cash. 3) Light weight.

fast86z28

Enkil

That sound has more to do with the high rev's. (Such as, the bore.)

Anyways, 10k rpm's isn't impossible, obviously, but it will require some heavy-duty parts. A lot of forged components say they can rev that high, but just barely. You'll definately need to shop in something other than Summit for the rotating assembly and heads and what-not. You certainly would win one for the originality of building an engine meant to rev that high, but ... for all intents and purposes, building an engine that can rev to 7k rpm is way more than enough. Certainly be a helluvalot cheaper, too.

Acidtalons

Alot of the exhaust note of F1 cars has to do with the fact that most of them are Dual Overhead cam and V10s, however to achieve such high RPMs they have a very short stroke and lightweight rotating mass.

At about 3 Liters they use turbos to high them alot of horsepower from such a small powerplant.


So if you really would want to do this project alot of money would be required.

Alan Johnson runs a speed shop in California called Cadillac Hot Rod Fabricators, they make DOHC heads for the cadillac small block (almost a chevy ) and then you would want to have the deck milled to a lower height, then use low weight pistons and custom made shortened connecting rods and custom ground crankshaft.

Then strap on a really big turbo and your done.

Keep in mind however, Caddillac already tried this and they have yet to have a winning season.

88305tpiT/A

iTrader: (2)

formula one cars do NOT use turbos...

The reason F1 cars are able to rev so high is something that you or I would never be able to afford.

back before the innovation I am about to tell you about, F1 engines used to redline at about 12-13k rpm with valve trains that were "conventional" in nature (coil springs)

to get more HP from those 3 liters you can either get beter VE ( which is VERY tough) or get more revs (also difficult)

the problem you start to have with large valvetrains (not as much of a problem on smaller engines) is that to get the valve to follow the camshaft at 13k+ rpm you need HUGE springs .

The inovation they came up with is they use compressed gas to AUGMENT the spring closing action. every F1 car has an onboard gas system to help close the valves at 19000 rpm by pnumatically injecting air into something under the valve retainer (dont know what though).

If you want more info do a search for F1 valve train or pnumatic springs and you will see that this is the reason they are able to run such high revs.

PonyKiller87

I read in an old issue of Hot Rod that you can build or buy a NASCAR motor which revs to about 8500-9000 ish makes a ton of hp but it has a very iratic idle and would be tough to put in a street driven car.

slow305

iTrader: (2)

At least not any more.

Pat, F1 semi-nerd

Drakar

High RPM (8000-10000) can be achieve with the right 302 or 355

now by 302 of course 4" bore x 3" stroke.

and by 355 I mean 4.155" bore x 3.2x ish " stroke.

even with these 2 combos it is going to be $$$.


But if you can handle a radical idle and always running the car at 5500-6000 as your cruise speed and you have a **** load of $$$, then go for it.

flyin89

iTrader: (7)

Drekar wrote "But if you can handle a radical idle and always running the car at 5500-6000 as your cruise speed and you have a **** load of $$$, then go for it."



This would be a sight to see on the interstate a guy coming by 4+ inch exhaust,5.67 gears 5500 RPM's scaring the hell out of every other comuter. Hondas everywhere will bow-down at the sight of the tips. Go for it!!

Vader

Screw all that reciprocating mass, and install a 800 SHP Allison turbine. 800HP @ 6,000 RPM output (secondary) shaft speed, 50,900 RPM turbine speed, 280 pounds total, 10 gallons fuel/hour at full power.

Now THAT would be an exhaust tip...

88305tpiT/A

iTrader: (2)

vader -- where do you get 50,900 rpm "turbine speed"?

maybe 15 is more like it...

edit..

and you are more of a visonary than you know---

And in passing, other notable turbine achievements include Parnelli Jones coming within two laps of winning the 1967 Indy 500 In Andy Granatelli's ST? turbine-powered race car. Jones led the field for 198 out of 200 laps but ended up a DNF when the transmission failed Nine turbine cars entered Indy for 1968, three of them qualifying, but by then rules were so stringent that they didn't do much.

Vince Granatelli, Andy's son, built a turbine-powered Corvette in 1979. The engine for this conversion was originally designed to power an oil-field generator. It developed 880 bhp and delivered 1,160 lb./ft. of torque. Rpm was so high that at idle the Corvette was running 60 mph, and the only way it could be slowed in city traffic was with the brakes. Needless to say, performance was a little hairy

--- from http://www.moparstyle.com/turbine.htm

I have the whole article somewhere but I cant find it now...

FruityOne

Forget a turbine! Gimme a scramjet! Not practicle, and nowhere near achievable, but certanly somthing to talk about. Gas turbine powered cars have always been a cool concept, not very practicle in the end though.

They do make turbine powered cigarette boats however. Easily in the 2,000hp range. Gotta have the money first though. Plus boats are much bigger than car. Turbine powered boats are typically in the 40 foot range. Average car is 12 to 16 feet long i think. Not sure though, as I've never really measured a car in length before.

A gas turbine powered car is more and feasible than a F1 style powerplant though.

Vader

Allison Model 250 Series II or Series IV turna at almost 51K RPM on the turbine shaft. I found a link: http://www.turbinedesign.com/Engines/allison.htm

As for the turbine powered boats, this is one I got a good look at:

Vader

Besides, for those wanting that "F1" sound, remember that a V-8 at 6,000 RPM has the same exhaust resonance as a four-holer at 12,000 RPM, and probably a lot more torque. Don't you find it odd that the 3,400 pound NASCAR entries can make 220+ MPH with the 358 cubes, no boost, and a 7/8" restrictor plate in the intake? Take off the fuel system restrictions, and those cars would be doing 250+ easily, and yet weigh over twice as much as an F1 go-kart.

88305tpiT/A

iTrader: (2)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 88305tpiT/A
vader -- where do you get 50,900 rpm "turbine speed"?

maybe 15 is more like it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Model 250 Series II or Series IV turna at almost 51K RPM on the turbine shaft. I found a link:

good call...

man those smaller ones really spin quick.

guess I am just used to dealing with the bigger ones but I bet the mechanical loading is pretty high just the same with 51000RPM!!!

slow305

iTrader: (2)

Not when you consider aerodynamics and gearing, and realize that an F1 car isn't anywhere close to being maxed out on top speed when it still has to make slower left AND right turns.

A good comparo on NASCAR and F1 (plus CART and IRL) cars:

http://www.cart.com/Tech/Car_Comparisons.pdf

88305tpiT/A

iTrader: (2)

I think the F1 cars are maxed out on top speed.

top speed is a function of torque overcoming driveline losses and aerodynamic loading. (weight being the same)

no mater how you do a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter, your probably not going to make as much torque as 5.7 liters

slow305

iTrader: (2)

I understand there is a limitation to a point -- xxx amounts of torque is only going to push a 1,200-pound car to a certain point. And a car with more torque and likely a better aerodynamic shape like a NASCAR car will ultimately have a higher top speed. But I wonder if F1 cars had less aggressive downforce packages they would not have more top end than the 230 on that tech sheet. For instance, you can see different rear wings on cars between races. If they run a less restrictive rear wing or a less restrictive aerodynamics package as a whole, would they not have a greater top speed?

Vader

Yes, the wings create massive amounts of drag. If you really want to compare the two mathematically, a hig-revving engine that makes less torque has the same effective power available to the vehicle as a slower engine making more torque. The rest is merely in the gearing.

To throw some arbitrary numbers at the comparison, let's assume an inline F-1 engine turns at 12,000 RPM and makes 350 lb/ft at that engine speed (that's quite a bit of horsepower). A V-8 turning at 8,000 RPM and making 650 lb/ft at that engine speed is going to propel an equal vehicle at a lot higher velocity. As we know, vehicle mass is relatively insignificant at higher velocities. It is aerodynamic drag that steals most of the power. Hence, a bigger, heavier, equally slippery car will outrun a lighter, smaller car with the two powerplants in the example.

It's just two different phiosophies, governed by race rules, and derived from the inability of most auto engine manufacturers to produce a larger engine and vehicle for their markets. European cars have to be smaller, and the engines have historically been smaller and higher-revving to produce power. Basically, they're "Runnin' what they brung", and writing the rules to exclude anyone that has any other advantage.

The philosophies are not unlike the Mitsubishi AN-6 and Chance-Voight F4-U. The Mitsubishis were a lot smaller, lighter, and more nimble, but the Corsairs were stronger, bigger, and way faster. Which philosophy prevailed in that comparison? The examples are all over the floor of the Pacific. Just ask your girlfriend - size DOES matter....

88305tpiT/A

iTrader: (2)

Ahh good ole' WWII

where all the really good propulsion devices/power adders got their start....


merry christmas everyone

NTChrist

Mmmm, I think the comparison between the Zero and the Corair might be skewed by the fact that the Japanese weren't looking for a 1:1 kill ratio. They were more interested in throwing masses of Zeros at flights of Corsairs, and hoping that through greater numbers, they could win a few battles. I mean, you're not building a quality piece of machinery when it's primary components are balsa wood, and cloth!

Although, Vader is right. The gullwing had a top speed in excess of 400 mph, while the Zero struggled to 335.

Vader

Ah-HA! Some more buffs.

That "Zeke vs. Corsair" point is just another manifestation of two different philosophies. Do you build them just well enough to get you down the road, or do you build them to last? And I'm not picking on the east - the same comparison can be made with the Bf-109s and P-51s, FW190s and P-47s, etc. And even the Me-262 was undermatched against the P-61s. As for the "balsa" wing spars (no wonder they snapped off under dive stress), the P-38s used quite a bit of spruce without problems. I guess North American engineering has been just a little bit better for longer than you might think.

Some things never change. How many '83 Toyota Tercels do you still see lurking the streets? Probably not nearly as many '83 'F' cars. And if the philosophy didn't change in the first 40 years, what evidence do we have to think is has changed in the last 20?

It's all not that much different than the F1 car theory, where everything is built just to get you to the end of a short trip, whereas a larger V engine can run several races, qualifying laps, and still be kept as a good spare. That's probably why the 3000GTs are still using weenie little engines while the Z06 sports a larger V-8 with only one camshaft. I guess if you really like that high-revving "F-1 sound", you might be on the wrong board. We like the thunder of big pistons - the kind of rumble that shakes the dust off the hood.

slow305

iTrader: (2)

So where does an engine from one of John Force's funny cars fit in all this?

azvolfan

I like the reference to WWII. We used to have a guy at work here who flew Corsairs in the war. He was stationed at Ewa Air Base in Hawaii on Dec 7th. I asked him about the Zero's and he said you never try to turn on one. You take him up and you take him down. But never turn on one. He said "speed" was life. That good ole dude finally retired last year. He was always good for a story.

azvolfan

Getting a little off topic, but it was fun.

As far as the 10k rpm, the cheapest and most effective way to do it may be to buy an Ifinite engine that they run in the "Indy Car Series". Can't remember where but I think I read were you could buy one of these on the open market. Don't know where though.

FlamedROC

I pit for a guy that races the local short track here in the sportsman class, and we have a 358 chev. with all stock strokes and such cause of regulations with motor but seriously this motor can rev up to 9000. I think the redline is around there. every race the motor is pushed to about 7700-8000 RPM's with 435 hp/475lbs tq. at rear wheels and the motor only cost around $6500 to build...not bad if thats the area of motor ur lookin...but a high rev motor for the street is kinda worthless...

my 2 cents