|
I know there's a Golf TDi rally car in existance but I was wondering if a diesel F1 car could get anywhere near a petrol version. Be interesting to find out ?
|
Trouble is, the spectators wouldn't be able to see the cars because of the smoke. :)
And imagine the fun a few diesel leaks on the track could cause. Maybe it is a good idea then, F1 needs making more interesting.
|
|
yes, and interesting 'turbo-diesel' starts - nothing much then warp-speed as the turbo and torque cuts in :-)
|
All I know is that for the new 5 series BMW, if you have to cchoose between the 3 litre petrol and the 3 litre diesel (price difference: £5) then the diesel is the performance car not the petrol.
Same seems to apply to the E320i and the E320CDi.
|
You cannot be serious!
Diesel is fine for cruising but hopeless when you keep slowing and accelerating (as on a race track). Remember when Top Gear sent a petrol and d**sel Lupo 'round the M25? Jeremy "I hate oil burners" Clarkson reckoned the diesel was better on the M25 - but the petrol was something like 5 seconds (an eternity in this context) faster around the test track.
Caution: not everything in this post should be taken entirely seriously
|
Yes I did see that test.
The diesel engine in the Lupo is a tadge smaller than 3 litres, methinks. Whereas the 530d has the same torque as the old M5 (no I'm not kidding) and only a smidgen less bhp than the 530i.
I have about 45,000 miles experience of the 530i engine. I drove the new 530d on several long test drives, and promptly put my money where my mouth is (as they say). It was also only about 3 years ago that I repeatedly told a salesman that no, I would not consider a diesel under any circumstances, never ever ever, no no no, show me the petrol one I want a proper car please.
|
I have been driving the old model 530d with the 193bhp engine.
Ok its economical. Its quite smooth and quiet- for a diesel. It can be driven quickly.
A friend of mines dad has an old r plate 528. In the book the sprinting time to 100mph is very similar to the 530d or thereabouts. This car is not as economical, but is smoother and quieter.
Which is the fastest. I would say the 528 petrol. the power delivery in the 530 in comparison is horid. I find it easier when driving quickly to keep the revs up more than the petrol because the power comes through so abruptly. It goes from off to on very quickly, and has turbo lag, which makes feathering the throttle out of a corner very difficult- it is easy to loose it mid exit. The gear spacing is such that is is difficult to keep the car above the wallop zone to. It simply isnt anywhere near as good to drive on the limit or very fast. The engine response is slow, and the gearchange isnt as good on the deisel, meaning quick heel and toe gearchanges are no where near as quick and satisfying as the petrol car. But if you just want to cruise around quite quickly and economically its great. But its not the drivers car the petrol is. The deisel is much better on the open road than it is around town. Motorway cruising is great.
I think its all a case of application and expectaiton. For many, probably the majority of people the deisel is the better option. But i don't beleive its quicker or better to drive.
But i haven't driven the new 530D- has anyone here driven the old and the new- i would be very interested to hear how much of an improvement the new engine is.
|
|
|
|
|
Please God, no!
|
Yep and it could be rebranded:
F0.75tdci :-)
|
|
Havent you ever seen Truck racing? I havent, I just see thick clouds of acrid black smoke!!
|
Or even LPG powered?
Didn't they try this in the Touring Car races?
|
|
|
|
Saw some truck racing a while ago, on the box: Mann (VW) seemed to dominate. What smoke I saw came from tortured tyres. Nothing of note from exhaust until mechanical failure.
|
|
|
|
Yep and it could be rebranded: F0.75tdci :-)
>>
yes the jaguar ford engine would be a "duradieseltec"
|
Yeah and each race Could be started with the cry:
READY......
STEADY......
GLOW!!!!!!!!
|
Diesel Motorsport rocks....
www.tractorpulling.com/mmedia/index.htm
click on the superstock links, sometimes the exhaust smoke has a backdraft/flashover and bursts into flame! Cool!
|
|
I have to agree with Patently. I drive a E320 CDI and it is as quick in the real world as the E500. On a track it would beat the petrol E320 hands down.
|
I have to agree with Patently. I drive a E320 CDI and it is as quick in the real world as the E500. On a track it would beat the petrol E320 hands down.
Marcos,
Please tell me you are joking.
Comparing performance of petrol and diesel was covered in the Backroom a couple of weeks ago. Triggered by an article by Clarkson in the Sunday Times on the BMW530d; a couple of quotes:
"That's because peak torque output is irrelevant, what matters is peak HP and the SPREAD of torque."
"can we please stop trying to pretend that the superior torque offered by a diesel in any way compensates for the lack of brake horsepower. When you accelerate in a modern diesel there's a satisfying urge, for sure, but it's over in a moment. And there is no power to carry the momentum."
The undoubted merits of modern diesels are that they are easy to drive and economical. However on a race track the petrol E320 & 530 would thrash their diesel equivalent.
C
|
Yes, bhp is indeed important, but the 530d has 218 as compared to the 530i with 231. A 5.6% is not going to make much difference.
OK the extra 13 bhp will help on the track, but when was the last time you saw a 5 series on a track day? I'm certainly not planning to put mine there - it will stay on the road and leave all those poor 530i's behind ;-)
The old model 530d had a previous generation engine and was significantly short of bhp as compared to the 530i, which is why my previous purchase was the i not the d.
|
Cardew,
I said it was quicker in the real world than an E500, not on a track. Unless you drive round a track all day.
I said the E320 CDI would be quicker round a track than an E320, which I believe is true. The diesel version is quicker accelerating, mid range by a long way and is quicker top end. Modern diesels are very easy to keep on the boil nowadays so I would like to know why you think I must be joking.
Marcos
|
Cardew,
I fail to see what point JC is trying to make. The idiot can't drive a diesel, simple. If he couldn't work out that thrashing the life out of the engine isn't getting him far but maybe utilising the huge amounts of torque would then he is a sad individual. It took me about 1 hour to work out how to drive my Merc very quickly without going over 3,500rpm. I can only presume he sat with it bouncing off the rev limiter wondering why the needle wouldn't go up to 6,500 rpm like the petrol version.
The figures in the books explain that the diesel is quicker than the petrol.
If anyone has any proof that the diesel version of the E-Class is slower than the petrol version I would like to know.
M A R C O S Notice the spelling C.
Cheers
|
Marcos, - sorry about the 'u'!
The Petrol version has 10% more power,(204 & 224) is 90kg lighter and has a rev range that far exceeds that of the diesel version.
The top speed and 0-60 time are identical on both versions because that is the gearing that Mercedes have chosen for them. But in a track context - and it is on this point I was challenging your statement - 0-60 or 20-40 in 4th are meaningless.
If on a track the petrol car would be using those extra revs, extra power and lower weight all the time. That is even if the cars were in standard nick.
Start developing them and allowing the petrol to have a turbo! Well 1.5 litres GP engines were producing over 1000bhp many years ago.
C
|
Anyway to divert this thread off the endless petrol vs diesel road car argument and back to the original request re F1.
If a team comes along and figures out that with their engine design and presumably reduced pit stop strategy then they could be competitive. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have a go?
I haven't seen many come along with a sensible answer. Apart from the regs being written to prevent it as have been led to believe.
The smoke thing is a non issue today as it happens.
F1 is boring enough, so yes really why not?
Something to do with the speed the mixture burns? Does that matter? Would engines have to built that much stronger considering the life expectancy?
Incidentally diesel engined racers have done well in endurance events, was this JUST down to fuel consumption so fewer stops, or is there a reason that the petrolheads just want to stick their heads in the sand about.
|
|
It may well end up more interesting than the current set up so why not give it a go.
|
|
Would it ever be possible to get 800bhp from a 3 litre diesel engine with the same weight as its petrol counterpart?
|
|
|
|
|
I know that the teams all have to use the same petrol. So using diesel would already be outside the current regulations. I'm sure that someone was planning on running diesels in the Le Mans 24 hour race if I remember correctly.
|
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want a diesel join F1, F1 is just sooo tedious, and appaulling value for money as a spectator sport. We could have "Formula D" or "FD", It should be in heats like The World's Strongest Man.
|
Couldn't we have F1 but with diesel SPILLS on the bends. It would make it interesting at least. And then giant foam padding so the drivers don't hurt themselves.
Not gonna happen is it?
|
Has Cardew won the latest diesel v. petrol debate ? I think he and Marcos should have a fight to sort it out once and for all :-)
Who's your money on ?
|
There will be no fighting on this site.
BTW Cardew I'm still not convinced but do understand your point. Don't worry about the U, no one else bothers.
Marcos
|
|
Marcos - I wasn't suggesting a virtual fight here, more an offically sponsored BackRoom event the date and location of which would be announced in code via the BR. BackRoomers with a grievance could bash the hell out of eachother to settle their differences. HJ could take the bets, one of the Mods. referee and HF would of course provide the sandwiches :-)
|
|
|
|
"Has Cardew won the latest diesel v. petrol debate ?"
Believe it or not I am a great admirer of modern diesels and have owned a lot of Mercedes in the past. When living in Germany I picked up from Sindlefingen the first RHD W123(a 240D) ever produced. That performance wise was a real dog - 60bhp if IIRC; the non-turbo automatic 300D that followed was not much better in the performance stakes but both cars felt like they were carved from solid metal. I then switched to petrol Mercs and owned several - the highlight being a 500SEL.
I have driven a couple of modern Turbo Diesel Mercs and they are light years ahead of the ones I owned. However they still suffer from the 'hitting a brick wall effect' when they suddenly run out of revs and stop accelerating, although I do appreciate that a different driving technique is required to take advantage of the massive torque available at low revs. If I were to return to owning a (saloon) Mercedes I would get a diesel if I were forking out for the fuel.
Getting back to the F1 diesel question. It might be interesting if we went back to the days of when both turbo and normally aspirated engines were allowed in F1 and allowed diesel and petrol engines. Clearly there would have to be restrictions on engine size. For instance Turbo Diesels up to 8 litres, turbo petrol up to 600cc and normally aspirated petrol engines up to 1 litre. Taking into account the weight penalty of a diesel engine that ought to be about right!!!
|
Two points keep coming up in this thread - that diesels require a different driving technique and that F1 needs shaking up to be more interesting.
This perhaps highlights both the problem with diesels in F1 and the opportunity? Namely that the drivers won't want a diesel because their skills are in driving petrol-engined cars, but that the introduction of (essentially) new cars calling for different driver skills would change the rules of the game and allow fresh blood in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simply put unlikey;
F1 cars have very small engines (2litres) with a long stroke pattern to create the 2L. Therefore in such a case torque (major advantage for diesels) is sacrificed for a high power output.
|
|
F1 are 3 litre cars surely ?
|
|
Yep just had a look on FIA's website. Apparently all cars have got to be 3l itre V10 engines with no more than 5 valves per cylinder.
|
FiF said: "Would engines have to built that much stronger considering the life expectancy?"
Interesting point, this; people think an F1 engine must be immensely strong. This isn't quite so, and is the reason F1 produces some of the best engineering on the planet. An F1 engine is built to be just strong enough to last for the race (or race and practice weekend). As a friend of mine in racing described it, the ideal F1 car would be built so light that it would fall to pieces as it crossed the finish line. Thus, the greater longevity of diesels would be an irrelevance.
To use an old saw that I love: "Any fool can build a bridge that won?t fall down, but it takes an engineer to build one that only just won't fall down. "
V
|
|
|
|
Arty - you are very wrong. Apart from them being 3 litres, they are short stroke. You need short stroke engines to get to high rpm i.e. 18,000 rpm the rods would snap on a long stroke engine.
THe low revs are one reason a diesel will never get in an F1 car. The only way a diesel would work if it was the same weight as a petrol and had a 37-speed automatic gearbox.
|
Power, torque and acceleration explained:
www.stanford.edu/~voloshin/lhowwhy.html
I can't remember how i found this site, it's possible somebody posted a link to it in the BR some time ago. Probably useful in this thread as well...
Ed.
|
Instead of 37 gears - how about a CVT gearbox to keep it at peak torque ?
|
Instead of 37 gears - how about a CVT gearbox to keep it at peak torque ?
JAJ, you beat me to it due to time lost defeating the V*lvo poop up!
Plus why does the engine have to weigh more? Possibly lower revving for whatever reason, but different stresses to be resolved, then the possibility of different materials.
Eg we have developed a stainless steel which is stronger and lighter than titanium. What other options are out there?
We need to think outside the box here.
|
But is the efficiency of a diesel a plus point? Say for instance you can save a pitstop for refuelling, thats about 25seconds of on track time, then you can afford to be 0.3sec slower per lap compared to a petrol car that requires the extra stop.....BUT tyres have to be improved to allow for this otherwise you will have to stop for replacement tyres anyway.
A complex subject that goes far beyond just the petrol vs diesel argument.
regards
Ian L.
|
|
|
|
True, but I don't know of a CVT application for anything with loads of torque, it appears to be confined to shopping cars at the moment. Plus CVT is never going to compete with a straight-cut race gearbox in terms of transmission losses, weight, or in ease of changing gears rations for different circuits.
The diesel thing is never going to happen in F1 - read the link that edisdead posted. RPM is indeed the key to POWER and a 4,000 rpm diesel is never going to beat a 18,000 rpm screamer on the track.
Now 2-stroke engines, that would be interesting, fires twice as often, so twice the number of power pulses, if only it wasn't for those pesky emissions.
|
"or in ease of changing gears ratios for different circuits."
?? Why would you want to do that when the gearbox is constantly operating in the "perfect" gear. ??
|
Doh! But they still have a kind of overall gearing though, depends on the size of the metal cone thing that the rubber bands go round. Technically speaking.
|
Doh! But they still have a kind of overall gearing though, depends on the size of the metal cone thing that the rubber bands go round. Technically speaking.
Yes I get the point that the range would have to be wide enough. so that a simple change of diff ratio might suffice if a low speed circuit like Monaco were needed.
Don't forget that not all CVT systems have belts e.g. Torotrak system as just another example. This also suffers from difficulties with handling high torque loads and not as efficient.
The point is that modern truck engines produce ~700 bhp and mamba torque like several thousand Nm at low engine speeds ~1200 rpm from not particularly big engines, maybe 5 / 6 litre V10s. The specific output in bhp/litre has been rising consistently.
Now I'm not going to suggest fitting a motor out of a Scania is going to be a sensible solution, but these things are built to go massive distances between oil changes, never mind services. Plus they last mega mileages.
So I just wondered what if...........
Off to have a better read of that article.
FiF
|
|
|
|
Instead of 37 gears - how about a CVT gearbox to keep it at peak torque ?
I think this was considered in F1 before but didn't work.
As for an f1 diesel engine, what???!!!!! Imagine the weight of an engine strong enough to deal with the stupid amount of torque needed to produce 900+bhp at 4000rpm, ain't never gonna happen, not to mention packaging such a beast!
|
|
you may mock, but Audi are seriously considering using a V10 Diesel GT car for Lemans in 2005. Saves a lot of time by missing out one refuelling pitstop over the petrol ones
|
|
|
Instead of 37 gears - how about a CVT gearbox to keep it at peak torque ?
>>I think this was considered in F1 before but didn't work.
I believe it did work.
Potentially very well.
Too well actually, so was banned before it took hold and resulted in cars with power bands the width of a piece of paper, but kept spinning at optimum revs, making a mockery of attempts to slow them down.
|
>> Instead of 37 gears - how about a CVT gearbox to >> keep it at peak torque ? >> >> >>I think this was considered in F1 before but didn't work. I believe it did work. Potentially very well. Too well actually, so was banned before it took hold and resulted in cars with power bands the width of a piece of paper, but kept spinning at optimum revs, making a mockery of attempts to slow them down.
Arr yes right you are, Williams ran them in the early nineties before they were banned - I knew it had already been done though...
Hmmm Ricardo had a rather interesting looking V10 diesel race engine (based on a Judd F1 unit) at Autosport this weekend so maybe not too far away after all.... Although it was a 4.6 and making 'only' 600bhp, from the power curves shown the characteristics of the engine seemed more like a turbo charged gasoline engine than a traditional diesel, making maximum power at 6kpm with a flatter torque curve. Probably more suited to Lemans than F1 though - not sure how the weight would compare to an f1 engine once all the high pressure pumps are considered and its still way off the power/displacement of current f1 engines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be even more boring than it is already. Michael ....what's his name... never can remember... no Growlette that's Jonny who won the Rugby... I'm talking about that silly stuff where they all race round the track following one another and no one ever gets in front......oh, THAT, oh I never watch that it's almost as bad as the golf.................
|
|
From the dark recesses of my mind I connected diesel and Indianapolis and looking in one of my books found a photo and a note saying that in 1952 a " Cummins diesel took pole position at an avereage speed of 138 mph." Unfortunately, no mention of how it did in the race itself. An interesting note also mentions how slow the generally big engined V8 petrol engined Indianapolis cars were. It was only in 1952 that the average speed of the Indy winner exceeded Varzi's (Bugatti)1933 average at the Avus or Farina's speed in a 1.5 litre Alfa at Tripoli in 1940
|
|
|
|
Evening All,
A couple of years back, diesel cars were just starting to win in endurance racing (wins at Spa and Nurburgring) when the authorities introduced rules forbidding a single driver stint of more than (IIRC) 2 hours, thus robbing the diesels of their advantage. It seemed strange to me, because rather than the diesel drivers saying they were getting exhausted driving for so long before the damn things needed refueling, I recall Hans Stuck saying that they short shifted the gears, didn't need to rev and rev and overall the diesel was generally much more relaxing to race.
I was totally bemused by that Clarkson piece on the BMW diesel. What he was in effect saying was that although the car had 200+bhp, 300+lbs/ft torque, did 0-60 in 7 seconds and had a top speed of 152 mph - he couldn't go quickly in it!
Someone mentioned 2 strokes. Anyone remember 2 stroke diesels? Same benefits, but without the emissions. So the F1 car would need to be five cylinder with 10 opposed pistons, supercharged, with a CVT 'box.
Just one more thing - I've always remembered a little piece in Autocar mag some time back. They took a Porsche Boxster and a Mitsubishi EVO whateverthelatestonewas together to Geneva. It seems the EVO, thirsty with small fuel tank, had to refuel SIX times, being stationary for 72 mins. The Porker did 30 mpg and has a good sized tank, meaning it refuelled twice, being stopped for 12 mins.
If that was so, it suggests to me that in the real world the Porsche is vastly quicker than the EVO, whatever the figures may say.
|
|
|
