WHY is F1 using a V10 anyway?

[ChrisB]

Yes, this is on-topic for CART! It seems the ONLY reason CART is going to a V10 is because that's what F1 uses. No apparent technical reasons.

Is there anyone out there who knows F1 history as to how the NA V10 transpired? First of all, why did F1 go NA in the late 80's? Was there some power struggle between the FISA teams who were supposedly pro-turbo and the FOCA teams who were pro-NA? I had heard that Bernie was ready to go all turbo until Ken Tyrell influenced him otherwise... anyone know the stories here?

I've also heard that the reason for V10's is mainly as a "cap" on number of cylinders because not everyone can afford to build V12's, otherwise they ALL would use V12's. More cylinders = more power. Anyone know about that?

It's just strange that CART is going to a V10 on no real technical basis, which in turn F1 is using for no real technical basis themselves.

(and yes, I've made yet another I4 turbo thread here (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169))

[Napoleon]

I know others will do a better job at answering this because they follow F1 closer then I but I thought basically they went with V10 because thats what Ferrari wanted, nothing else.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by ChrisB
I've also heard that the reason for V10's is mainly as a "cap" on number of cylinders because not everyone can afford to build V12's, otherwise they ALL would use V12's. More cylinders = more power. Anyone know about that?


Not necessarily. More cylinders gives you more RPM and theoretically more power. But more cylinders means more moving parts moving against each other therefore more friction. Friction robs the engine of horsepower, and the frictional loss is more or less proportional to the RPM, so a V10 revving at 15,000 RPM can put as much hosepower as a V12 at 16,500 because it's not losing as much horsepower to friction. F1 engines builders quickly realized this and found that the V10 was a better layout than the V12. It was the happy medium between a V8 and a V12. You got high RPM without as much frictional horsepower loss. Because everyone was building V10s anyway, F1 simply mandated the layout.

Those big block V8s from the 1960s and 1970s had similar problems. Those 400 cubic inch and larger engines were bogged down in the friction of the big pistons sliding up and down the cylinders (to say nothing of the weight of those large pistons and trying to move them up and down along with trying to get those large connecting rods to move).

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by DaveL
Those 400 cubic inch and larger engines were bogged down in the friction of the big pistons sliding up and down the cylinders (to say nothing of the weight of those large pistons and trying to move them up and down along with trying to get those large connecting rods to move).

?

I would think bigger is less friction because the surface area of the piston, as a percentage of volume of the cylinder (I am assuming stroke remains the same) decreases with size. In fact off the top of my head I would say that applies to bearing surfaces also.

Now it maybe that in increasing the size they may have had to increase the mass of each part in a larger percentage then the volume gained, and therefore the inertia of the parts increased faster then volume, but that is anouther story.

(I hope that makes sense).

[Mike Kellner]

When the 3.5 liter NA formula was new, they allowed up to 12 cylinders. It turned out V10s were the best compromise between fuel consumption, motor size/weight and power. Or more simply, Renault made a V10 that blew everyone off. After that, everyone who wasn't building a V10 built one. A few years ago, they became afraid the richest teams would build V12s for the fast tracks where power was more important than handling and V10s or V8s for places where fuel consumption and handling were most important. They mandated V10s to head that off.

mk

[Gurneyflap]

SEE! So V-10s will be more expensive than I or V or Flat or Transverse turbos, so , again, why go V-10? I predict this will be the hottest topic from now 'til the decision for '05 is made. Isn't the idea to draw manufacturer interest? Well, c'mon, don't more build 4s than 10s? Why cater just to F-1 mfgs? THAT'S what really bothers me. I won't hold my breath waiting for a turbo4 Ferrari... but Porsche, BMW, Audi, Honda, Toyota, etc?

[nrc]

My theory on why Pook keeps talking about V10s is thats what Cosworth suggested when Pook asked what they could do for the series for 2005 and beyond.

The V10 idea doesn't make sense from any perspective other than the fact that there are a number of manufacturers out there that could do that formula without starting an entirely new program from scratch.

That's the problem CART faces. They need a new engine, but in their current state it's going to be tough for someone to justify the cost of designing a new engine from the ground up for CART. Especially if they must then turn around and lease it to teams at some reasonable cost.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Napoleon
I would think bigger is less friction because the surface area of the piston, as a percentage of volume of the cylinder (I am assuming stroke remains the same) decreases with size. In fact off the top of my head I would say that applies to bearing surfaces also.

We're talking about big pistons with long strokes turning on large bearings. It all adds up to a great deal of friction, to say nothing of the inertia loads.

[Peter Venkman]

I tend to agree with both Mike Kellner, who is one very knowledgeable race guy, and DaveL, who possesses not only the same level of racing knowledge, but is, I hear, a fine ballroom dancer.

A V10 was the ideal sweet spot in number of cylinders, that traded off total valve area, V configuration freedom, bearing surface area (P/V), RPM to piston speed potential and probably some other factors that made the V10, the idealized configuration.

But, there is one thing that has made some very large changes in technology, that today, might change that “sweet spot”, and that is the development of some very super low coefficient of friction (Fc) material coatings that drastically reduce rubbing/rolling friction.

Some of these coatings, like amorphous Diamond coatings, bring down the Fc to about .002, where Teflon is at .02. This order of magnitude reduction in rubbing friction, might bring that “sweet spot” back to 12 or more cylinders.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Peter Venkman
and DaveL, who possesses not only the same level of racing knowledge, but is, I hear, a fine ballroom dancer.


I only do it to hang with the babes with the great legs.

[Mike Kellner]

There is one good reason to go with V10s. If the manufacturers want to. It would be a saving for them if they could use the same motors in CART & F1. If F1 could ban pneumatic valves and bring revs back to 16K, costs would go down. CART has engine contract price limits and minimum supply rules now. If we could be guaranteed a supply of motors at a reasonable price, what's to complain about? In the end, a motor is a part, and any motor that produces the requisite power reliably and for the price we want is worthy of consideration. It will not do to leave auto companies who build race motors out of the decision process.

[pchall]

Originally posted by Peter Venkman
Some of these coatings, like amorphous Diamond coatings, bring down the Fc to about .002, where Teflon is at .02. This order of magnitude reduction in rubbing friction, might bring that “sweet spot” back to 12 or more cylinders.

Let's all root for the next CART formula to be a blown 1.5l V-16.

Listen to this and you'll know why:

BRM (http://www.billzilla.org/BRM-loudpass.mp3)

Probably turning over 9,3000 rpm and developing at least 540 hp -- all done and running well in 1953.

[Peter Venkman]

Man, that's just the cat's *ss.


I remember fondly the sound of the Matra's of the late sixties, early seventies.

They actaully hurt your ears.

Ferrari's had that same sweet timbre that they always had, whereas the Matra's sounded like a cat being neutered with a popcicle stick.

[RichK]

I have NEVER turned up the volume on my office computer as loudly as I just did. Great stuff!

[Hink]

Mike's original post is the correct answer given by the powers in F1 at the time the V-10 was mandated. The best engines of the time were V-10s and there was fear that someone would put massive money into a V-12 and blow everyone away.

PV - Never heard that description of the Matra before nor have I heard one in real life (recordings only) but it sounds pretty cool.

[Foxman]

WOW!!! That sounds MEAN. I cranked it on the home theatre system. :D

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by Napoleon
I know others will do a better job at answering this because they follow F1 closer then I but I thought basically they went with V10 because thats what Ferrari wanted, nothing else.

Ferrari has long run V12's, IIRC...

I know the V10 limit was recent; didn't Toyota start down the path of a V12 only to have the teams ban it... costing Toyota one year in F1?

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by pchall
Let's all root for the next CART formula to be a blown 1.5l V-16.

Listen to this and you'll know why:

BRM (http://www.billzilla.org/BRM-loudpass.mp3)

Probably turning over 9,3000 rpm and developing at least 540 hp -- all done and running well in 1953.

Now you folks know one reason why I rave about Grand Prix Legends... imagine being in the middle of the grid being surrounded by 19 cars sounding like that...

[DjDrOmusic]

On another forum someone posted a press release from MG-Rover that was announcing a collaboration between themselves and John Judd in the production of V-8 and V-10 sportscar engines. I wonder if Pook's insistance on using a V-10 in 2005 is in someway connected to this. A contract to supply part of the field in 2005 with an engine that will have 2 to 3 years development behind it, could make an arbitration go away or at least go much smoother.