Where does 46kg come from?!

[Stu]

https://i.imgur.com/nJ7OZc1.jpg

To really give that some perspective it would be good to have a1996/7 car in that picture too, they were wider then than they are now (2.15m max).

[Henri]

https://i.imgur.com/nJ7OZc1.jpg

To really give that some perspective it would be good to have a1996/7 car in that picture too, they were wider then than they are now (2.15m max).

If the 2007-2008 car had the current engines with 1000hp.. they'd be the fastest cars ever

[JordanMugen]

To really give that some perspective it would be good to have a1996/7 car in that picture too, they were wider then than they are now (2.15m max).

2.00m from 1993 until 1997, but 2.15m from 1972 until 1992 like this 1984 Renault:


The proper width I say!

1.8m narrow track era, which was after all nothing more than a misguided FIA regulation and not chosen for engineering reasons, is unreasonably fondly remembered. They were silly squashed cars, far too narrow.

Bring back the traditional 2.15m width, and get that free roll stiffness I say!

As the chassis got slimmer, they just looked so wide, mean and just plain great with those elongated control arms:


Meanwhile, "honey, look who squashed the racecar".


Renault did a demo with '78 and '83 cars too:


Note the low profile front tyres on the '78 car for people who think low profile tyres are a merely an unfortunate modern phenomena. They were allowed 15" fronts until the early 80's and many of the designers made use of that for the advantages of the bigger wheels and lower profile tyres.

[PlatinumZealot]

I liked the narrow cars actually. It made the tyres look more aggressive.

[henry]

One of the lightest V10s was BMWs P85, before the sporting regs demanded engines cover double the mileage previously planned, forcing BMW to stop the project. The P85 was only 82kg.

So basically it never raced because it was too fragile.

I wonder how heavy a 900-1000hp 3.5l V10 would be if it had to last for 8 events? You’d have to re-instate refuelling also.

Not only would the ICE be heavier to last longer but the cooling arrangements also come into play. The V10s probably rejected 700kW to the cooling system whereas today’s turbos reject around 200kW. Obviously the turbos need some cooling for the ERS and inter cooler but they still would be about half the V10 requirement. And that’s not just increased weight for the heat exchangers but aero drag.

I don’t think the total package for the turbos is anything like the handicap people think when they compare the V10 ICE to PU masses.

[vorticism]

One of the lightest V10s was BMWs P85, before the sporting regs demanded engines cover double the mileage previously planned, forcing BMW to stop the project. The P85 was only 82kg.

So basically it never raced because it was too fragile.

I wonder how heavy a 900-1000hp 3.5l V10 would be if it had to last for 8 events? You’d have to re-instate refuelling also.

Not only would the ICE be heavier to last longer but the cooling arrangements also come into play. The V10s probably rejected 700kW to the cooling system whereas today’s turbos reject around 200kW. Obviously the turbos need some cooling for the ERS and inter cooler but they still would be about half the V10 requirement. And that’s not just increased weight for the heat exchangers but aero drag.

I don’t think the total package for the turbos is anything like the handicap people think when they compare the V10 ICE to PU masses.

I think this was somewhat answered by the V8 era.

RB7:


RB11:


The installation is much simpler. Fewer ducts, hoses, etc.

[JordanMugen]

I don’t think the total package for the turbos is anything like the handicap people think when they compare the V10 ICE to PU masses.

I don't agree. The V8 or V10 package is demonstrably more simple and more compact, as Vorticism showed. There are far fewer coolers for instance.

Beyond the difference in power unit minimum weight, there is probably additional weight gain in all the extra coolers, coolant and ducting.

[PlatinumZealot]

A NA engine with TJI and variable intakes the cooling package would have been much smaller too. 40% to 45% thermal efficiency would have been achievable I reckon.

[vorticism]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

[Stu]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.

Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA, but they ended up awarding the Jim Clark trophy to best NA (Jonathon Palmer in a Tyrell if I remember correctly), they followed with a ‘roll-over’ year against 3.5l NA (1988, I think), where they became very restricted.

[vorticism]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.

Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA, but they ended up awarding the Jim Clark trophy to best NA (Jonathon Palmer in a Tyrell if I remember correctly), they followed with a ‘roll-over’ year against 3.5l NA (1988, I think), where they became very restricted.

Ah, right, toluene. Was it that certain teams were saying the turbo formula was getting too expensive, or too unsafe?

[Stu]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.

Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA, but they ended up awarding the Jim Clark trophy to best NA (Jonathon Palmer in a Tyrell if I remember correctly), they followed with a ‘roll-over’ year against 3.5l NA (1988, I think), where they became very restricted.

Ah, right, toluene. Was it that certain teams were saying the turbo formula was getting too expensive, or too unsafe?

I can’t recall exactly, other than Toleman (Hart) it was only really manufacturer teams that were using turbo engines, but I would imagine they were as scary as hell with qualifying boost around Monaco!!

[Tommy Cookers]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.
Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA ....

the FIA always attempted equivalence from 1938
eventually handicapping the supercharged (boosted) engine to death eg 1954 2500cc NA vs 750cc supercharged
but opened the door again by allowing boosted engines (so turbo) 70% of NA capacity in touring cars and endurance
and 50% for convenience in 1966 F1 3000cc NA 1500cc boosted (1961-5 was 1500cc NA 500cc boosted)
opened the door

F1 fuel capacity was then limited to .....
250 litres as part of 1973 crash-safety mandates
220 litres and refuelling ban in 1984
195 litres in 1985 - apparently for both NA and boosted
(presumably both at this point on the road to higher fuel density ie toluene etc)

then 1987 4 bar MAP limit
1988 2.5 bar MAP and 150 litres fuel limit (boosted only)

how could the FIA 'experts' be so useless ?
proudly limiting RON was laughable - even MON would have been better
eg for 1958 F1 switched to 'road fuel' aka 'pump fuel'
allowed Avgas (we're now always told 100/130)
but these numbers are minima - typically 100/130 tests at c.110/130
and somewhere in primotipo it even says they used Avgas 108/135
aromatics (toluene/benzene/xylenes) have always been the enabling ingredients in this (1938-invention) Avgas
detonation-resistance is poor at high flame temperatures but outstanding at low flame temperatures ie rich mixtures

the 100 or whatever is the RON - in effect a lean mixture test
the 130 or 135 is the supercharge performance number - in effect a rich mixture test
what did the FIA think those numbers were there for ?
on high-aromatic fuel the boosted engine makes much better use of rich mixture than does the NA engine

[Stu]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Teams/manufacturers were taking the piss with fuel (type/volume) & boost levels.
Attempts were made at equivalence with 3.0l NA ....

the FIA always attempted equivalence from 1938
eventually handicapping the supercharged engine to death eg 2500cc NA vs 750cc supercharged

but they opened the door again by allowing super (so turbo) 70% of NA capacity in touring cars and endurance
and 50% for convenience in 1966 F1 3000cc NA 1500cc super (as F1 1961-5 was 1500cc NA 500cc super)
opened the door

F1 fuel capacity was then limited to .....
250 litres as part of 1973 crash-safety mandates
220 litres and refuelling ban in 1984
195 litres in 1985
apparently for both NA and super

Thanks, lots of goodness in that post.
I can remember the equivalency in the early/mid-eighties being 1.7:1 (and a lot of ‘weird’ capacities appearing in the Group B rally cars -largely aimed at getting a lower weight limit; under 3-litres had a lighter minimum weight than the 3-3.5 litre class).

[Jolle]

What was the reasoning for dropping turbocharging at the end of the 80s?

Elio’s crash in testing in 1986.
His death was the prove that F1 engines became to powerful for circuits, chassis and tires at the time. From ‘86 onwards there was a timeline to reduce boost and fuel consumption and the return to NA which is much easier to control by regulation (just decrease the capacity every few years).