global race engine

[Racedriver]

Anywhere!!! Can you help me? When can I to buy global engine 1600 turbo? Complite or parts: The block of cylinders, head of the block of cylinders..

.

[bt52b]

Don't think you can, as I don't think rules final yet. Maybe at the WMSC on Sept 8th, the rules might be finalised, then the manufacturers can start building prototype engines.

Probably take at least six months after that, to develop a basic engine package.

[Mirek]

Ford and Citroën already have prototype 1.6T engines in testing.

[noel157]

And Mini/Prodrive later this month.

[OldF]

The rules must be almost finalized when both Ford and Citroen are already developing the engine. Maybe the September meeting is only about fine-tuning the rules regarding for example the turbo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKx1s4QSuOM (The same that was in the “Ford Fiesta RS WRC” thread). Just wondering how Ford will achieve same performance from a 1.6 litre engine with 2,5 bar boost limit compared to a 2.0 litre engine with about 4 bar boost.

But what I’ve read in our motor sport magazine VM, the world engine rules would make it possible for example for Cosworth to develop a world engine and sell it to a manufacturer.

[janvanvurpa]

The rules must be almost finalized when both Ford and Citroen are already developing the engine. Maybe the September meeting is only about fine-tuning the rules regarding for example the turbo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKx1s4QSuOM (The same that was in the “Ford Fiesta RS WRC” thread). Just wondering how Ford will achieve same performance from a 1.6 litre engine with 2,5 bar boost limit compared to a 2.0 litre engine with about 4 bar boost.

But what I’ve read in our motor sport magazine VM, the world engine rules would make it possible for example for Cosworth to develop a world engine and sell it to a manufacturer.

Hej Old Finn,
I have copy of "Racecar Engineering" right ----> there with a big long article on the "World Engine" idea which is being discussed not just for Vörlds Shampionsheep ralli*, but also for Touring Cars and F whatever 3 or other motorsport with the fiction that the cars are somehow related to something the manufacturer makes.
They said something that anybody hwho has been inside engines for a few decades could not help to notice: the the ability of Manufacturers to harness CAD/CAM and FEA (finite element analysis) to design and in advance run accurate stress analysis and manufacture motors of various sizes with every part designed to be "just enough' for the design target, and not a gram more material than just that..

In other words no margin of "overbuild" in every area but especially basic block dimesnions and materials thicknesses, crank dimensions etc.

No more can we take o Ford Pinto or Opel CIH or Volvo Redblock and safely double the original output and have a motor that lasts a season or 2.
Gone are nice forged steel cranks with main journals 57-62mm and rod journals 52-54mm. Now for a 2 liter 50mm on a iron crank is BIG for main journal as is 48mm on a rod journal.

The article said "And manufacturers say this design trend will only continue..."

So they're talking about a modular design flexible in size for motors from 1,6 to over 2,0 liter but from the time goes to paper---or however they start now---robustness of design for very high outputs is the goal...

Interestingly enough, the head chosen is the Ford Duratec/Mazda PEZ which is at least something that the normal rally driver on the stage (man on the street??) can easily get...

Problem is this just drive rally further along the direction which it has been lost on since the regulations allowed the "World Rally Car" to be made in runs of 20.





* Official Tommi Mäkinen pronunciation

[OldF]

Hej Old Finn,
I have copy of "Racecar Engineering" right ----> there with a big long article on the "World Engine" idea which is being discussed not just for Vörlds Shampionsheep ralli*, but also for Touring Cars and F whatever 3 or other motorsport with the fiction that the cars are somehow related to something the manufacturer makes.
They said something that anybody hwho has been inside engines for a few decades could not help to notice: the the ability of Manufacturers to harness CAD/CAM and FEA (finite element analysis) to design and in advance run accurate stress analysis and manufacture motors of various sizes with every part designed to be "just enough' for the design target, and not a gram more material than just that..

In other words no margin of "overbuild" in every area but especially basic block dimesnions and materials thicknesses, crank dimensions etc.

No more can we take o Ford Pinto or Opel CIH or Volvo Redblock and safely double the original output and have a motor that lasts a season or 2.
Gone are nice forged steel cranks with main journals 57-62mm and rod journals 52-54mm. Now for a 2 liter 50mm on a iron crank is BIG for main journal as is 48mm on a rod journal.

The article said "And manufacturers say this design trend will only continue..."

So they're talking about a modular design flexible in size for motors from 1,6 to over 2,0 liter but from the time goes to paper---or however they start now---robustness of design for very high outputs is the goal...

Interestingly enough, the head chosen is the Ford Duratec/Mazda PEZ which is at least something that the normal rally driver on the stage (man on the street??) can easily get...

Problem is this just drive rally further along the direction which it has been lost on since the regulations allowed the "World Rally Car" to be made in runs of 20.





* Official Tommi Mäkinen pronunciation

No hejsan igen young swede.

How do these two matches?

“every part designed to be "just enough' for the design target, and not a gram more material than just that..”

and

“robustness of design for very high outputs is the goal...”


BTW, it’s öfficial Tommi Mäkinen pronunciation

[bt52b]

There might be an agreement but its not final yet. If it was a rule, you could read it on fia.com .

Nothing is final until it is ratified by the WMSC. Can't believe a bloody thing coming from the incompetent FIA Rallies Commission until you see it cast in stone by the WMSC. Must be at least three years late and they still screwed up, with cars probably as expensive and maybe less safe.

Its interesting that Prodrive say they can't be ready with a Mini WRC for January, but Ford and Citroen have to homologation complete.

[noel157]

I don't even think there is any protocol written yet for manufacturers to register for the WRC 2011 yet. Sure, no hurry.........

[janvanvurpa]

No hejsan igen young swede.

How do these two matches?

“every part designed to be "just enough' for the design target, and not a gram more material than just that..”

and

“robustness of design for very high outputs is the goal...”


BTW, it’s öfficial Tommi Mäkinen pronunciation

Hej gamla Finne, the first quote is them talking about current OEM engines and the future OEM or series or sirja (?) road car engines, the second quote is what the whole gang of manufacturer reps were talking about the purpose built race and rally motor..

Hey did you ever see the thing at ralliparadis.fi that was an announcement of "English Course for Co-drajvers"?

Absolutely hilarious. I put it up on the much too boring and acting to serious USA rally site under "Whay the Finns kick our ass" and people too it too seriously, and of course nobody even tried to read it---it was pure fin-glish with TM pronunciation
You see it?

[AMSS]

The rules must be almost finalized when both Ford and Citroen are already developing the engine. Maybe the September meeting is only about fine-tuning the rules regarding for example the turbo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKx1s4QSuOM (The same that was in the “Ford Fiesta RS WRC” thread). Just wondering how Ford will achieve same performance from a 1.6 litre engine with 2,5 bar boost limit compared to a 2.0 litre engine with about 4 bar boost.

But what I’ve read in our motor sport magazine VM, the world engine rules would make it possible for example for Cosworth to develop a world engine and sell it to a manufacturer.

OldF
That`s exactly what I am wondering too, regardless of how they can design various engine parts to last, they cant change the physics for air flow if the boost pressure is limited and also if the restrictor really is 33mm. It`s just against all basic rules of physics!
Air in and air out is how you get power, 200bar fuel pressure want help the burning if there is no air.
I am really afraid that the new engines will be even more boring than the current ones... :mad: :mad:

[janvanvurpa]

OldF
That`s exactly what I am wondering too, regardless of how they can design various engine parts to last, they cant change the physics for air flow if the boost pressure is limited and also if the restrictor really is 33mm. It`s just against all basic rules of physics!
Air in and air out is how you get power, 200bar fuel pressure want help the burning if there is no air.
I am really afraid that the new engines will be even more boring than the current ones... :mad: :mad:


Wait a second! Air flow, or air volume into the turbocharger is limited sure, but what happens to whatever air manages to get into the turbo isn't. Air FLOW is only part of the story and the other half is what is done in the cylinder and the head: compression. More compression means a bigger "bang" or maybe "pang!" på finska. Two things limit how big the Pang! is: the fuel resistance to detonation and the distance the flame front must travel.
Fuel is set, so the resistance to detonation comes down to things like cylinder diameter. WRC engine builders i talk to say engines with smaller bores like the old Mistusishi or others around 85mm bore are much more tolerant of higher static compression than motors with larger bore like YB Cosworth at 90,8mm or Subaru at 92mm...

I would guess the new 1600s will be somewhere around 80 to 81mm bore, sound small, and tolerant.
Just make the cylinder walls 6mm thick and the rods like little stumpy rods and a good steel crank and you have a good bottom end that will make a good amount of 'vrid moment' or as i call it 'yank' or 'ax' or PANG!

Then with right box and final drive it should go really well.

We can't look back to the old Mazda GpA car with it's 1600 because the basic motor was a undersized piece of junk from the beginning, very small parts in the crank and rods....

[OldF]

Wait a second! Air flow, or air volume into the turbocharger is limited sure, but what happens to whatever air manages to get into the turbo isn't. Air FLOW is only part of the story and the other half is what is done in the cylinder and the head: compression. More compression means a bigger "bang" or maybe "pang!" på finska. Two things limit how big the Pang! is: the fuel resistance to detonation and the distance the flame front must travel.
Fuel is set, so the resistance to detonation comes down to things like cylinder diameter. WRC engine builders i talk to say engines with smaller bores like the old Mistusishi or others around 85mm bore are much more tolerant of higher static compression than motors with larger bore like YB Cosworth at 90,8mm or Subaru at 92mm...

I would guess the new 1600s will be somewhere around 80 to 81mm bore, sound small, and tolerant.
Just make the cylinder walls 6mm thick and the rods like little stumpy rods and a good steel crank and you have a good bottom end that will make a good amount of 'vrid moment' or as i call it 'yank' or 'ax' or PANG!

Then with right box and final drive it should go really well.

We can't look back to the old Mazda GpA car with it's 1600 because the basic motor was a undersized piece of junk from the beginning, very small parts in the crank and rods....
Hej på dig!

That is of course true how efficiently the air/fuel mixture is ”used” in the combustion chamber but I think that it’s still impossible to achieve same power from a 1,6 litre / 2,5 bar / 33 mm restrictor engine compared to a 2.0 litre / 4 bar / 34 mm restrictor engine.

That’s also how I’ve have understood it that with a bigger bore you can have better “vrid moment” (torque) and also bigger bore (short stroke) engines can rev higher because the average speed of the pistons reaches the limit at higher revs when the pumping losses groves to much (på finska pumppaushäviöt, what ever that means, explain please. Read it in a magazine when the new 2.4 litre and limited bore F1 rules were release. The guy writing it said that the limit of the average speed of the pistons is about 25 m/s).

IMO another factor effecting the power is the volumetric efficiency. If the best VE (with the same air flow) is at higher revs, you get more power.

[Mirek]

The limit on piston speed is because of possible connection rod and piston pin breakage (it's quite old approximate criteria, now there are precise methods). The force is given mainly by acceleration of piston and it's weight. The higher the speed is, the higher is the acceleration at top and bottom dead center of piston movement.

Therefore You can either have shorter stroke and higher rpm (F1) or longer stroke and lower rpm on same speed limit (speedway motorbikes).

[ste898]

Yet another stupid stupid idea.........

I thought we were finished with these when the control tyre was thrown away!!!!

[AMSS]

Hej på dig!

That is of course true how efficiently the air/fuel mixture is ”used” in the combustion chamber but I think that it’s still impossible to achieve same power from a 1,6 litre / 2,5 bar / 33 mm restrictor engine compared to a 2.0 litre / 4 bar / 34 mm restrictor engine.

That’s also how I’ve have understood it that with a bigger bore you can have better “vrid moment” (torque) and also bigger bore (short stroke) engines can rev higher because the average speed of the pistons reaches the limit at higher revs when the pumping losses groves to much (på finska pumppaushäviöt, what ever that means, explain please. Read it in a magazine when the new 2.4 litre and limited bore F1 rules were release. The guy writing it said that the limit of the average speed of the pistons is about 25 m/s).



IMO another factor effecting the power is the volumetric efficiency. If the best VE (with the same air flow) is at higher revs, you get more power.

This is exactly what I meant, i know the restrictor doesn`t limit everything as for Instance Ford used their "air collection system" after the restrictor in the -03 Focus and got considerable gain in power from that. However even such systems are banned nowadays so were back to the restrictor thing again.
Also the actual pulse between intake and exhaust must be consider the main area of power source, this is easier said than explained but basically it means how much can go in versus how much burns and goes out efficiently.

You just can`t combust something that you doen`t have enough off.

and btw pumppaushäviöt betyder nånting i stil med förlorad förbrännings effekt el. dyl.

[navtheace]

Why don't they go the full hog and have fully like F1.

Where the engine needs an external starter and 10 engineers to start it.

[HFAlex]

]The limit on piston speed is because of possible connection rod and piston pin breakage (it's quite old approximate criteria, now there are precise methods). The force is given mainly by acceleration of piston and it's weight. The higher the speed is, the higher is the acceleration at top and bottom dead center of piston movement.

Therefore You can either have shorter stroke and higher rpm (F1) or longer stroke and lower rpm on same speed limit (speedway motorbikes).


Hi there-
Srry, but limit on piston speed should come from the air speed (sonic limit) inside the intake manifold and head up tio the valve.

Just my small add :D

[OldF]

Hey did you ever see the thing at ralliparadis.fi that was an announcement of "English Course for Co-drajvers"?

Couldn’t find anything with this address (ralliparadis.fi)? Och inte heller med ralliparatiisi.

[OldF]

Hey did you ever see the thing at ralliparadis.fi that was an announcement of "English Course for Co-drajvers"?

Couldn’t find anything with this address (ralliparadis.fi)? Och inte heller med ralliparatiisi.

[OldF]

]The limit on piston speed is because of possible connection rod and piston pin breakage (it's quite old approximate criteria, now there are precise methods). The force is given mainly by acceleration of piston and it's weight. The higher the speed is, the higher is the acceleration at top and bottom dead center of piston movement.

Therefore You can either have shorter stroke and higher rpm (F1) or longer stroke and lower rpm on same speed limit (speedway motorbikes).

I think this is more about mechanical stress due to the piston speed.

This
and btw pumppaushäviöt betyder nånting i stil med förlorad förbrännings effekt el. dyl. is more close or the result of the pumping losses.

This is what I found from Wikipedia:

“Along with friction forces, an operating engine has pumping losses, which is the work required to move air into and out of the cylinders. This pumping loss is minimal at low speed, but increases approximately as the square of the speed, until at rated power an engine is using about 20% of total power production to overcome friction and pumping losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

[bt52b]

Anyone seen any details about the price of the GRE kit? On another site they were saying the kit to convert the production engine would be about $10k to $20k, and had to be available within six months of a manufacturer using it in competition.

[Sulland]

F1 is also to use 1600T from 2013 according to both Autosport and GP Week

This one is aiming for aprox 650 hp with 3.0 boost.

[bt52b]

Seen another article that said some GRE's + kit would cost $50k