I like the turbo idea and if you build the internals strong enough you will have half a chance, you must EFI and then you will find the power difficult to manage. If you can manage the power it will be a good package, sound insane and probably cost over twice as much as anything else.
Jawa questions
- Thread starter drtracr
- Start date
I like the turbo idea and if you build the internals strong enough you will have half a chance, you must EFI and then you will find the power difficult to manage. If you can manage the power it will be a good package, sound insane and probably cost over twice as much as anything else.
JawaMaster09
New member
Sounds ok! Try racing a turbo on an oval you might have a lot of trouble on and off the gas turbo spooling up and down up and down. And you are going to run 13.5:1 it will over heat on anything other than a straight line run and done. JMO
I thought that was to much compression too. A relative of mine used to race turbo 202ci 6 cyclinder against 360ci V8 in a class very similar to late models and he had hell trying to use the power. He said he was never WOT and it was huge power but couldnt do anything with it, used indycar EFI stuff and all. Never had TC, it was 1988-1992. Ended up just running the usual Chev 360ci race engines and never looked back at the turbo 6cyl.
Superchargers have there own problem with running on. From the one I drove, when you lift off for a split second the thing wants to keep on powering on. I'm guessing there are many ways around this or perhaps my friends AMG 55 wasnt running properly or some design fault. IDK but some guys that used to race sidecars told me the same thing from bikes they ran in the late 70's. Pretty sure you could run something in the EFI or somesort of clutch device but again it seems like a lot of messing around. Still the power would be massive. Remeber F1 used to get 1000Hp in race mode with a 1.5L engine.
65ShelbyClone
Member
It sounds like a drag motor that wouldn't last very long in endurance racing.
They weren't making that much in actual race trim. They made 1100+hp (as much as 1400+ from the BMWs) only on the dedicated qualifying engines and those engines were only good for about two hot laps. An engine the size of a CRF450 would have to make about 390hp to equal that power density. 80psi of boost is also not an easy feat in sustained race conditions.
Sorry, you're correct, the race trim was more like 700Hp. Anyway the point I'm making is 390Hp per 500cc is a long way from 100Hp for 500cc. That's just my point, I think 100Hp for 500cc is very conservative. But again as you mentioned, it becomes a question of how long you want it to last before a full rebuild.
alvin l nunley
Site Supporter
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. If you’re talking about F1, they don’t have qualifying engines.
They have to race with the engine they qualified with, otherwise, (they can replace a broken engine) they have to start at the rear of the starting lineup. They get a starting position penalty if they have to replace just about anything.
Comments, compliments, criticisms and questions always welcome.
If the data does not support the theory, get a new theory.
Which planet have you been on Al, when the F1 guys were making 1100+Hp in qualifying trim with 1.5L engine that was the turbo days of the late 80's. They always had qualifying engines then that were lucky to do more than 2-3 qualifying laps at their best.
65ShelbyClone
Member
I believe it. The BMWs would go from 250hp to 800+ in a 2,000rpm window.
What I think makes those F1 engines more impressive is that they actually went around the track a few times at 800-1000hp/L. The only automotive engines I'm aware of that make that kind of power now are the Top fuel drag mills. They see teardowns after every ~1,200 engine revolutions and don't even have cooling systems. So yeah, it becomes an issue of longevity.
I was referring to the 1983-1986 turbo F1 era when teams were allowed to have an entire spare driveline solely for qualifying. A spare chassis could be used if one crashed-out. They even got to use special tires for qualifying that only lasted a few laps. It was a total farse, but the results were impressive.
Incidentally, Group B rally cars were at the same high level of development during the same three years.
What I think makes those F1 engines more impressive is that they actually went around the track a few times at 800-1000hp/L. The only automotive engines I'm aware of that make that kind of power now are the Top fuel drag mills. They see teardowns after every ~1,200 engine revolutions and don't even have cooling systems. So yeah, it becomes an issue of longevity.
I was referring to the 1983-1986 turbo F1 era when teams were allowed to have an entire spare driveline solely for qualifying. A spare chassis could be used if one crashed-out. They even got to use special tires for qualifying that only lasted a few laps. It was a total farse, but the results were impressive.
Incidentally, Group B rally cars were at the same high level of development during the same three years.
Taft Racing
Member
Who's gonna be the first with pneumatic valves. Thats where f1 made its biggest improvements and the gp bike is right with them. You know it'll bleed over into karting soon.
john hilton
Member
pd. i believe that 125 is older than that!get the warmers on your bed yet??? ha.ha!
65ShelbyClone
Member
Karting is 30 years behind top-level motorsport it seems, so I give it another 10 years.
Pneumatic valve springs were the teams' answer to turbos being banned after '88. It's a whole package though; once everyone was using pneumatic valve springs, the engines were then built around being able to spin 16,000rpm and higher. Rod:stroke ratios have been over 2.5:1 for a long time. Every system in an F1 engine complements the others, which is why I don't think there is a lot to be gained by retrofitting an existing utility engine design with pneumatic springs unless a lot is changed. It's on my to-do list anyway, but I'm not going to try spinning a 64mm stroke engine to 12krpm with an aluminum rod and slinger oiling either.
Taft Racing
Member
Karting is 30 years behind top-level motorsport it seems, so I give it another 10 years.
Pneumatic valve springs were the teams' answer to turbos being banned after '88. It's a whole package though; once everyone was using pneumatic valve springs, the engines were then built around being able to spin 16,000rpm and higher. Rod:stroke ratios have been over 2.5:1 for a long time. Every system in an F1 engine complements the others, which is why I don't think there is a lot to be gained by retrofitting an existing utility engine design with pneumatic springs unless a lot is changed. It's on my to-do list anyway, but I'm not going to try spinning a 64mm stroke engine to 12krpm with an aluminum rod and slinger oiling either.
The new 450 engines are using steal rods, oil pumps w/oil injected crankshafts. Half your work is done.
Oh yeah they'll turn over 13,000 now.Karting is 30 years behind top-level motorsport it seems, so I give it another 10 years.
Pneumatic valve springs were the teams' answer to turbos being banned after '88. It's a whole package though; once everyone was using pneumatic valve springs, the engines were then built around being able to spin 16,000rpm and higher. Rod:stroke ratios have been over 2.5:1 for a long time. Every system in an F1 engine complements the others, which is why I don't think there is a lot to be gained by retrofitting an existing utility engine design with pneumatic springs unless a lot is changed. It's on my to-do list anyway, but I'm not going to try spinning a 64mm stroke engine to 12krpm with an aluminum rod and slinger oiling either.
Just on the rod/stroke ratio, I think the 2.5:1 is all about packaging and weight management. I'm just putting my ideas out there for some helpful discussion and trying to help guys like Tim Taft as best I can with the little bit of knowledge I have.
I think the F1 rod/stroke ratio is to try and lighten and shorten the crankshaft by making lighter and thinner counter weights on the crank and then in order to keep the balance in phase they then need to spin them on a bigger PCD. In doing this it makes the crank assembly bigger in diameter which then requires a longer rod to get the clearance so the piston doesn't foul on the crank at BDC and still have enough skirt to guide it in the bore.
I sure would like to hear from some F1 or indy experienced engine guys.
dirtracing
Member
The micro 600 engines are turning 16,800 rpm with springs
BrendanFitz #73
New member
Well I'm betting in the next ten years we'll be putting out turbo, direct injected, and putting out 200hp out of these little engines. Soon the unlimited form of kart racing will be like F1 compared to hobby stocks to the stock classes. The search for power will never end and all these tire treatments will be causing tires to stick to anything like superglue lol.