Very nice post! See.. this is the type of info that should be included in the coverages.. A bit geeky but I'm sure a bit of tv magic could produce very interesting segments. Sometimes the pseudo-techy info they show on tv becomes too repetitive.. I haven't heard about the KERS batteries in the wings getting banned... and I followed Winter testing.. All the while I thought they are still using them. I'm surprised this hasn't come out yet. This would have been a perfect excuse for Stefano to use!
"Now the most important part which hadn't been discussed here at all, or at least was new to me: Before the first race, Ferrari had by far the fastest car, even faster than the Brawns - until FIA deemed their KERS batteries in the front wing illegal for safety reasons (in case of a crash, spectators might have suffered from gas coming from the leaking batteries). Ferrari had to relocate everything, completely destroying their weight balance and packaging." I have trouble believing this. All that weight at the front of the car was faster than putting in the chassis? "I'm not at all happy with that comment..... If it were true then airplanes would still be bi-planes....." Airplane aerodynamics are completely different from F1 cars. Bi-Planes would necessitate a structure that would remove passenger/cargo space. Also, airplanes wings a swept back and have slats/flaps for take-off and landing, effectively making them a multi level wing when high lift is needed, but a low drag, just enough lift wing when needed. Airplanes dont need maximum lift at all times. They just need enough to fly, not shoot to the moon. Two different applications with two different solutions.
It's not an excuse(the battery location),it's a legit reason.I just hope this recent mini-resurgence can escalate into us retaining our WCC.
As Ian said: Please tell us more! That picture was pretty much what he had in his presentation. I guess that's the "multiple wings" thing he was talking about.
Very interesting - I think this may be the first time I have heard a realistic (modern-day) claim on the bore of an F1 engine. I thought that the teams all tried to keep the exact bore & stroke secret. But if they have to run the 94mm bore by regulation, then that pretty much locks in the stroke as well, right? And very interesting about the connecting rod stretch...similar things supposedly happen in top fuel drag cars. So, was this "compression stretch" kind of designed into the rods? Maybe this was one of the metallurgy contraversy things from some years back where certain components had a super-secret cycle of warming and cooling to create unnatural strength - did they use that on the rods back in the day? Some of this meddling by the FIA is discouraging: it really makes it look like they want to slap down any maker bold (or rich) enough to come up with new ideas in the name of equalizing everybody. I never understood the benefits of outlawing the inert tire gas, nor why they hated tire warmers so much.
If memory serves, I think that was in Honda superbikes (so, kind of F1 on two wheels). I think it was to get more valve area in a formula that required only two cylinder engines, so it made sort of a four cylinder geometry out of a twin.
I know they did in bikes. I seem to remember Lenny Setright writing about them applying the same tech to F1. It would be back in the Senna years I believe.
Maybe somebody else would remember - that doesn't really ring any bells with me, but I do remember the bike motors.
Great thread - thanks for starting it! re bikes: Honda built a 4-stroke Grand Prix bike called the NR500 (stood for New Racing, but wags said it was Never Ready) for their return in 1979, which was when the rules were for 500cc and max 4 cylinders, and 2-strokes ruled. Honda wanted to win with a 4-stroke so went for higher revs by using oval cylinders (effectively siamesed pairs) and 8 valves per cylinder, still with valve springs - it revved to some big number for that time, about 20,000, but still wasn't powerful enough (the 2-strokes were giving 120 bhp in 1980, so the NR500 needed to give 250 bhp/litre at least, with the extra weight and friction) so they switched to 2-strokes in 1982 until the the start of the 'Moto GP' 4-strokes in 2002. Then in the early '80s they built a version for open 750cc racing (like the Suzuka 8 hours), and finally the NR750 road bike in '92. With modern metals and pneumatic valves they could do better now, but the 2-stroke GP bikes were up to 185 bhp at the end of their time in 2001 - that's 370 bhp/litre.......... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NR500 Paul M
The bore limit is 98mm, which all teams run. But the 98mm were optimal for 20krpm engines, for 18krpm, 95mm is best. As the engine development is frozen, they still have 98mm. I suppose the rods were not specifically designed for stretching to a certain compression ratio, but if you know about such a (very influential) factor and have to calculate these effects when designing your engine, you might as well make the best use of it.
