Variable Cam Timing in F1

[sirus]

I was wondering about the plausibility of introducing variable cam timing into f1 to improve torque/rpm performance. I know this technology is used elsewhere, but isn't used in F1 as far as I know. Is this tech feasible or does it only really benifit torque at low rpms and not the 18,000+ rpm f1 run at?

Thanks!

[marcush.]

I´m sure it was used ,and I bet it is constantly under evaluation.
My fly tells me they work on engines with constantly variable camtiming ,
even without camshafts somewhere.....
But that is far far away from what we will see on our TV screens and look,
they run at almost 20K RPM now .....with a thing introduced one hundred years ago...
The biggest issue for not having the variable cams is weight highup the engine and more moving parts that could lead to failure and of course the narrow operating window needed ....
And remember , we are told they found 6 horsepower for the new engine
wich is now rated at 902... a real difference translating laptimes at least
half a second lower....
An interesting thing would be to optimise the Cam phasing for max RPM,
so as you reduce the Max RPM for the race it might be possible to regain some Top end performance instead of throwing away say 100hp as they seem to do at the moment....

[rollo]

Variable cam or valve timing is meant to preserve driveability at low to mid engine revs while still able to produce a significantly high power at high revs in atmospheric multivalve production road-going engines.

Since Formula One is an all out race around a track, I don't think variable valve/cam timing is really applicable.

[marcush.]

hm...
why should one cam timing / lift combination work at different rpms perfectly ?
Don´t forget Vtec technology is a rather crude form of optimising the valve events for different engine rpms /loads.
Idealy you´d like to have variable valve opening events for any rpm /load to max out engine performance...if that was not too heavy and complicated.
I´m not saying you would need a great deal of change as the RPM band is narrow...

[Mclaren11]

If you are saying that F1 cars don't have much variation in RPMs you are dead wrong. The revs fluxuate from up to 19,000-4,000 in a matter of seconds.

[marcush.]

that was not my point.
of course they can run at that low rpm ,but the rpm drop when changing gears is not that much ,that was what I wanted to say.
Oh that brings up the problem how do they cope with the wrong gearing
in the race when almost everybody seems to drop max rpm for the race....so having a good torquespread is even more of importance....

If you´d speak of the lower gears,you have too much torque anyway(why do they have traction control?).

[Guest]

Wasn't Honda's Vtec developed for their F1 engines first? I remember reading that back in the late 80's before the NSX came out. Or was that just a marketing myth?

[West]

Wasn't Honda's Vtec developed for their F1 engines first? I remember reading that back in the late 80's before the NSX came out. Or was that just a marketing myth?

That could be true, considering the NSX was built as a car to celebrate their success w/ McLaren in the late 80's.

[guest]

vtec is crude?

no other manu has been able to replicate such a feat, til this year with mitsu copying the vtec design. there are 3 variants of vtec also; dohc vtec, sohc vtec, and 3-stage vtec. thanks only to vtec, honda was able to manu the first production engine to make 100hp/litre. then with 3-stage vtec, they were able to make a 120hp engine capable of getting 50mpg.

[Steven]

thanks only to vtec, honda was able to manu the first production engine to make 100hp/litre. then with 3-stage vtec, they were able to make a 120hp engine capable of getting 50mpg.

I suppose that is 1hp/l.km ? right?

[West]

vtec is crude?

no other manu has been able to replicate such a feat, til this year with mitsu copying the vtec design. there are 3 variants of vtec also; dohc vtec, sohc vtec, and 3-stage vtec. thanks only to vtec, honda was able to manu the first production engine to make 100hp/litre. then with 3-stage vtec, they were able to make a 120hp engine capable of getting 50mpg.

VVTi has always been considered better than VTEC and then there's VVTi-L...

100hp/Liter isn't too exciting when there's no torque... and considering the fact that the RX7's 13B produced 250hp/1.3 Liters...

A Ferrari 360 Modena makes around 100 hp/ liter... and the good thing is that there's TORQUE. BTW u probably meant that the S2000 made 120hp/liter... but u still have to rev like hell just to move it.

[rollo]

Wasn't Honda's Vtec developed for their F1 engines first? I remember reading that back in the late 80's before the NSX came out. Or was that just a marketing myth?

For most of the 1980s, before the forced induction ban had come about, Honda F1 engines were turbocharged and not VTEC. Around that decade, when Honda road-going production cars started sporting normally-aspirated multi-valve engines, VTEC was developed to address the rather poor low to midrange torque typical of such engines, without losing out on the benefit of extra available power in the high rpm range.

[rollo]

VVTi has always been considered better than VTEC and then there's VVTi-L...

Which is why Honda had come up with i-VTEC.

[Becker4]

And remember , we are told they found 6 horsepower for the new engine
wich is now rated at 902... a real difference translating laptimes at least
half a second lower....

6 hp gains you half a second? that seems a bit much . . . . or were you trying to say something else and i misunderstood?

[Guest]

vtec is crude?

no other manu has been able to replicate such a feat, til this year with mitsu copying the vtec design. there are 3 variants of vtec also; dohc vtec, sohc vtec, and 3-stage vtec. thanks only to vtec, honda was able to manu the first production engine to make 100hp/litre. then with 3-stage vtec, they were able to make a 120hp engine capable of getting 50mpg.

VVTi has always been considered better than VTEC and then there's VVTi-L...

100hp/Liter isn't too exciting when there's no torque... and considering the fact that the RX7's 13B produced 250hp/1.3 Liters...

A Ferrari 360 Modena makes around 100 hp/ liter... and the good thing is that there's TORQUE. BTW u probably meant that the S2000 made 120hp/liter... but u still have to rev like hell just to move it.

no, i meant the b16a, the engine i live by. the honda engine that has a near perfect rod length to stroke ratio of 1.736:1. then they developed the b16b which produced 185hp or 115hp/litre, then the itr b18c which produced 205hp from 1.8 litres or 113hp/litre. last came the f20c, or the s2000 engine that produced 240hp/litre.
now, the ferrari 360 modena wasnt widely available to the buying public, was it?
who cares about torque from a 4 cylinder? if you want a 4 cylinder with torque go buy a vw with the deisel engine.
i own a b16a that is capable of 12,000 rpm's given the right cams with proper lift. with the cams i run now, i can liveat 10,000 rpm's all day long without a problem. if your engine makes high rpm hp, then shift so you can keep the engine revvin high...if you like a v8 clunker with a stroke of 5", stay low and grunt.

better yet, why would you talk down on high rpm hp when you are at an f1 website? last i checked f1 engines didnt make much torque either, but they make a shiteload of hp.

and no, i mean litres/1000cc's.