BAR runs 2.4 V8

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

GYXU > F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally > BAR runs 2.4 V8 25 May 2005 03:08:27

Recent blog posts:

Hi!
Hi! I am Kate from Ukraine! I don't now, everything about this website. Also I dodn't know english very…

...
http://gyxu.com/p/login.cgi?r=http://www.winxclub.com/

ONOTOLE NEGODUE
Blin, nu zaipali trabli s ssilkami.Zaxozu kuda to - BAZ! i ja snova gostj.Vxozu i vse norma,no…

Sri Lanka Vs West Indies
Sri Lanka won the first match by more than 100 runs…this is first in West Indies. .unfortunately after…

Blog Feed
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TumbleweedRealtyMaui

:-)
:-)

...

...

…

Forums:

topic feeds

• GYXU all topics, blogs and comments

• General

• F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally

• Baseball

• Basketball

• Boxing

• Football

• Soccer

• Hockey

• Rugby

• Tennis

• Pro Wrestling

• Billiard

• Cycling

• Boats

• Kites, widsurfing, waterski

• Diving

• Skiing

• Cricket

• Golf

• Skating

• Buy / Sell

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Woohoo!
The best there ever was and the best there ever will be. Jeff Gordon

Re: ExcuseFest 2009
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:15:28 -0800 (PST), sterling <sterlingla@aol.com> wrote: There is…

Recent forum topics:

Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
Does any of our Scandinavian friends know about Christian Hoffman being recently banned from racing for…

Steel bolts and nuts for Ultima…
The now discontinued Jackson Ultima Matrix mounts (for removable figure skating blade runners) held the…

Stockholm-Falun scoring system…
Kowalczyk overcame Majdic to win the overall WC title because she got the 200 bonus points for the…

Worn Rotefella Boots
Dear All, just back from an excellent trip to Norway. One problem, in heavy snow, very difficult to…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Season opener?
On Mar 19, 7:07pm, garystanislaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hey thats great! hope to see you out…

RE: Season opener?
On Mar 20, 8:24am, Zephyr <davedejo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

RE: Season opener?
I sail Cass sometimes before jet ski season, but not sure if it's open yet. Maybe I'll see you there…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT), ADK Skier <lgsumr@yahoo.com> wrote: Kikkan Randall…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
I'll stay out of that one. Some February lab test results - in the midst of races - showed my…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
ADK Skier wrote: The real problem wasn't a high hemo value, but the wrong ratio between what I…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mar 23, 3:11pm, Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote: Thanks Terje…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Neil wrote: Yes indeed! Normally it was sufficient to press the binding further down, i.e. tighten…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Thanks for the suggestion. Looking at the boot tip in the cold light of day, the rubber is worn and the…

RE: OT: Ordnance Survey wallpaper
"Robert Treharne Jones" <tjwizard@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message…

Модератор:


BAR runs 2.4 V8
Tussock 6 May 2005 09:11:04
	http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=85055 <quote> Technical director Geoff Willis described the particularly low, small and less powerful 2006 design as 'strange.' He added: "In some ways (it's) more like a MotoGP engine than an actual F1 V10." </quote> The back of the car seems to have completely disappeared, so it looks a bit like a 4 wheel motorbike too. http://www.f1racing.net/en/photolarge.php?photoID=42729 It's 4 seconds a lap off the pace of this years machine, which will take at least until 2010 to regain I'd imagine. Hell, it's as slow as a Minardi! 8] -- tussock Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
		Add comment


Randy Howard 6 May 2005 10:01:32 [ permanent link ]
	In article <427afdea$1@clear.net.nz>, scrub@clear.net.nz says...> It's 4 seconds a lap off the pace of this years machine, which will > take at least until 2010 to regain I'd imagine.> Hell, it's as slow as a Minardi! 8] No, it's about 1.5s a lap faster than a Minardi. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory, just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks
		Add comment


Dave 6 May 2005 17:17:53 [ permanent link ]
	22,000 rpm? good grief!
		Add comment


Tim@Nocomment.Com 7 May 2005 18:35:34 [ permanent link ]
	Bob Dubery wrote: tim@nocomment.com wrote:> I thought I read somewhere that someone was testing a V8 powered car> did very well.> Cosworth have been bench-testing a V8. That engine revved very high and> produced considerable power - but it's not been tested in a car yet.> Yes, I found and re-read the article. Sorry for the mis-statement.
		Add comment


Aco76 9 May 2005 18:34:49 [ permanent link ]
	The new 2.4 litre engine should be some 20% down on power compared to current V10. But it must be lighter with lower centre of gravity, possibly enabling the whole car to have a better balance. With further advancements to engine, I wouldn't be surprised if new cars match current laptimes within a year or two.
		Add comment


Pete Fenelon 9 May 2005 19:37:26 [ permanent link ]
	aco76 <yeah@right.com> wrote:> The new 2.4 litre engine should be some 20% down on power compared to> current V10. But it must be lighter with lower centre of gravity, possibly> enabling the whole car to have a better balance. With further advancements> to engine, I wouldn't be surprised if new cars match current laptimes within> a year or two. Cosworth's 2.4 is apparently putting out over 820bhp - the 2.4s rev a lot higher than the 3.0s (presumably because things like the crank are a lot lighter and the block is probably stiffer. I'd hazard a guess that the engine is very different to a 'sawn-off' V10 and that Cosworth have probably made some interesting optimizations to the breathing arrangements - after all even the 10 cylinder engines are physically tiny, I'm sure some of the space gained by lopping two cylinders off can be 'wasted' in a slightly longer block (remember the '06 rules call for a heavy engine!) that gives you space to put a head with better porting on... So at the moment it's more like a 10% drop in horsepower. Pretty impressive. At the current 'escalation rate' I reckon we'll be back to 900bhp by the middle of '07. Factor in aero and tyre improvements and I think apart from the sound(!) there will be very little difference in lap times by the late summer of '06. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "We ask ourselves 'what will become of Evil Gazebo?'"
		Add comment


Bigbird 9 May 2005 19:56:50 [ permanent link ]
	aco76 wrote:> The new 2.4 litre engine should be some 20% down on power compared to> current V10. But it must be lighter with lower centre of gravity, Not neccesarily, it will have a minimum weight and minimum centre of gravity plus additional material restrictions to make it cheaper and posssible to last a larger number of races.
		Add comment


Tussock 19 May 2005 22:24:30 [ permanent link ]
	captain wrote:> tussock wrote:> <engines>>> Just been reading up on this, and am rather new to it, so someone >> correct me if I'm wrong.>> Classic V8's are set at 90 degrees with paired pistons. The V10 >> runs like a V6 with offset pistons, but best set at 72 degrees instead >> of the V6's natural 60 degree.>> O O O O>> \|-\|-\|-\|-->> O O O O>> O O O O O>> `,`,`,`,`,-->> O O O O O> For ASCII art, those were remarkably good illustrations! who needs CAD.. Heh. Gotta love the medium of plain text. 8] Cheap V10's in road cars are just an extra pair on the end of a >> V8, look's like cosworth's gone the other way, cut the end off a V10: >> perhaps to save redesigning all the airflow gear.>> For a given capacity, V12's have more power, and V8's are lighter, >> but V10's gain back more in fuel efficiency than they loose in power >> or weight.> Is it that clear-cut a difference? My assumption always was that the > engine with smaller pistons could run higher RPM (more horsepower) but > suffered with lack of torque (see some of the Ferrari V-12 vs Benetton > V-8 battles). If this inherent in the engine layout or by design, I > don't know. The V12 revs higher with the same materials because it has no cyclic vibration that needs damped, and so has no counterweights or balance rods: strait 6's are naturally balanced, and melding two of them at 60 degrees just makes everything smoother. Higher revs then makes for more power at the same displacement. V8's simply need less metal to contain the same displacement, and so are lighter. They also need internal counterweights, and so can't rev quite as high. Bigger cylinders naturally make for smoother power curves, or so I read. It's apparently quite the trick to produce a nice smooth power curve in a naturally aspirated engine at those sorts of revs, so any help would be appreciated I suppose. Would the V-10 be a compromise position on this, or is fuel efficiency> greatly affected by the piston size / firing order? (or some other> factor I have never heard of?) It looks like it was a comprimise. Very tricky to force balance into a V10, but doable with late '80's (CAD) technology. After that it came down to what best matched the regs of the time. I don't know why it beat the V8 on fuel efficiency. Perhaps that the classic V8 requires relatively heavy internal counterweights, that while much easier to design (1930's vs 1980's) end up costing you. Hmm. Those counterweights also add rotational inertia, which cuts back your gear change speed and stuff, and must slightly slow acceleration. That'll be why the 2006 ones are avoiding the classic layout. I've always assumed that the fuel efficiency of these different engine > types would be similar if their power output is similar. Or rather, if > one engine is less fuel efficient, it produces more power which > compensates for the extra fuel that must be carried. Perhaps, but they had to carry full fuel then, and lots of it, so any differance would have been quite pronounced early in the race. What might have been most important at that was the proportion of available energy the engine could draw from the fuel. The 3.0 normally aspirated V10 clearly won the fight anyway, and they've been regulated to stick with them ever since. -- tussock Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
		Add comment


F2005: 0 of 3 22 May 2005 06:01:27 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:24:30 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote: [...]> Perhaps, but they had to carry full fuel then, and lots of it, so >any differance would have been quite pronounced early in the race. What >might have been most important at that was the proportion of available >energy the engine could draw from the fuel.> The 3.0 normally aspirated V10 clearly won the fight anyway, and >they've been regulated to stick with them ever since. The regulation only happened when certain teams had found the ways to make superior V-12s again.
		Add comment


F2005: 0 of 3 22 May 2005 06:01:43 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:34:49 +0200, "aco76" <yeah@right.com> wrote:>The new 2.4 litre engine should be some 20% down on power compared to>current V10. But it must be lighter Regulated heavier. with lower centre of gravity, Regulated higher. possibly enabling the whole car to have a better balance. IRL, with gasoline. With further advancements>to engine, I wouldn't be surprised if new cars match current laptimes within>a year or two. Power may be similar, but the weight and CG issues are going to make them handle like rear-engined Beetles.
		Add comment


John Briggs 22 May 2005 12:52:57 [ permanent link ]
	F2005: 0 of 3 wrote:> On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:24:30 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>> wrote:> [...]>> Perhaps, but they had to carry full fuel then, and lots of it, so>> any differance would have been quite pronounced early in the race.>> What might have been most important at that was the proportion of>> available energy the engine could draw from the fuel.>> The 3.0 normally aspirated V10 clearly won the fight anyway, and>> they've been regulated to stick with them ever since.> The regulation only happened when certain teams had found the ways to> make superior V-12s again. You're trolling, aren't you? -- John Briggs
		Add comment


F2005: 0 of 3 23 May 2005 04:19:45 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:52:57 GMT, "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:>F2005: 0 of 3 wrote:>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:24:30 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>>> wrote:>> [...]>>> Perhaps, but they had to carry full fuel then, and lots of it, so>>> any differance would have been quite pronounced early in the race.>>> What might have been most important at that was the proportion of>>> available energy the engine could draw from the fuel.>>> The 3.0 normally aspirated V10 clearly won the fight anyway, and>>> they've been regulated to stick with them ever since.>> The regulation only happened when certain teams had found the ways to>> make superior V-12s again.> You're trolling, aren't you? ...You're ignorant of the facts, aren't you?
		Add comment


John Briggs 24 May 2005 17:42:16 [ permanent link ]
	F2005: 0 of 3 wrote:> On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:52:57 GMT, "John Briggs"> <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:>> F2005: 0 of 3 wrote:>>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:24:30 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>>>> wrote:>>> [...]>>>> Perhaps, but they had to carry full fuel then, and lots of it,>>>> so any differance would have been quite pronounced early in the>>>> race. What might have been most important at that was the>>>> proportion of available energy the engine could draw from the fuel.>>>> The 3.0 normally aspirated V10 clearly won the fight anyway,>>>> and they've been regulated to stick with them ever since.>>> The regulation only happened when certain teams had found the ways>>> to make superior V-12s again.>> You're trolling, aren't you?> ...You're ignorant of the facts, aren't you? If you believe that, why not tell me the "facts"? What exactly was "superior" about the Type 044/1? -- John Briggs
		Add comment


F2005 . . . 25 May 2005 03:08:27 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:42:16 GMT, "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:>F2005: 0 of 3 wrote:>> On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:52:57 GMT, "John Briggs">> <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:>>> F2005: 0 of 3 wrote:>>>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 06:24:30 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>>>>> wrote:>>>> [...]>>>>> Perhaps, but they had to carry full fuel then, and lots of it,>>>>> so any differance would have been quite pronounced early in the>>>>> race. What might have been most important at that was the>>>>> proportion of available energy the engine could draw from the fuel.>>>>> The 3.0 normally aspirated V10 clearly won the fight anyway,>>>>> and they've been regulated to stick with them ever since.>>>> The regulation only happened when certain teams had found the ways>>>> to make superior V-12s again.>>> You're trolling, aren't you?>> ...You're ignorant of the facts, aren't you?> If you believe that, why not tell me the "facts"? What exactly was >"superior" about the Type 044/1? ...Whose argument is that? Ferrari and Toyota were testing new V-12 designs, the BMIA put a stop to it. You could look it up, but you'd rather be a chimp.
		Add comment

GYXU > F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally > BAR runs 2.4 V8 25 May 2005 03:08:27

	see also: Big Show Interview in Memphis TN at… Re: Kenda Kolossal? Elo ratings updated on May 26		pass tests:		see also: Lazily... Hi!

Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .