F1 Engine - Explained

[@EngineeringExplained]

It's just something I do for fun, started it 2 years ago in hopes of boosting my resume. :)

[@f.g.6019]

2,6 subscribers...think you don't have to worry about your resume anymore

[@ZennybearOG]

@@f.g.6019 yeah haha

[@colinscutt5104]

7 years later i think you managed

[@TheCannonofMohammed]

I learn more from this guy in 5 minutes than I do in a whole semester class (plus the comments, too).

[@Pet_Hedgehog]

ikr

[@worldtravel101]

*truth*

[@trysis260]

Hank Fuddle do your homework though. can't pass the tests unless you tackle the assigned problems yourself. got to be able to reproduce what you think you understand by solving problems and applying the formulas and concepts by getting stuck and unstuck. there is more to this than meets the eye. He does a good job getting you the big picture but the details are just as important.

[@sacr3]

Wrong, In school they teach you how those spark plugs function, why they use the materials they do, why they need torque and gap, why they need to be platinum, iridium, or copper. They teach you why there are tolerances, how big the tolerances are, why the piston ring has a gap, how many piston rings/scoopers there are, what oil does and how its viscosity affects the engine. The various Sump types, oil types, engine types like opposed, 90 degree, Inline, Rotary, etc. They teach you what the proper fuel air ratio is for the given application, they teach you why the cylinders need to be scored, why the valves operate as they do, the different types of cams, etc. Then they give you practical, where you can operate them, take them apart, see them for yourself. If you're learning more from this than you are school, you're not listening. These videos give you an overview of a specific topic, they don't explain why and how these little bits function and why and how they do what they do to make up the entire engine.

[@36hounddogg]

Obviously not working hard enough

[@DavidElstob73]

Can't believe Jason looked 17 in 2012, but now in 2020 he looks 45?

[@lotyloty2]

It's insane how old he actually is...

[@koalaaaaaa04]

Lol

[@russellnotestine6436]

@@lotyloty2 I think he's in his 60's

[@lotyloty2]

@@russellnotestine6436 ye I know

[@juni_2452]

@@russellnotestine6436 are you joking or is he actually in his 60's? because if he is thats insane, the aging patch didn't get updated for him😂 but it's probably a joke there is now way

[@EngineeringExplained]

"When the piston is at TDC during overlap is when vacuum is at it's greatest in the cylinder. NOT BDC." Obviously, yes. But it doesn't take much air to fill 1/4 or 1/5 of the cylinder. That would translate to a volumetric efficiency of 20-25%. The piston moving down pulls in additional air.

[@davidjohnson4417]

The amount of ppl calling this out of date is incredible the video was posted in 2012 lol. They are 1.6 v6 single turbos now yeah.

[@EngineeringExplained]

And I have a video on the new engines as well haha.

[@emgaming2004]

twin turbos for 2016

[@sik59rt]

+Euan Matthew uh, no

[@emgaming2004]

sik59rt uh yes. formula 1 announced this.

[@sik59rt]

+Euan Matthew no, they absolutely did NOT. Nearly nothing is changing for 2016. The big changes come in 2017 by way of major aero improvement and......single turbos still. Try using the internet

[@WildBillHabiki]

This young man explained more about an F1 engine than anyone on SpeedTV or NBC which now covers F1 in the US. Thanks. p.s. The engine picture at the end of the video was glorious.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Thanks!

[@RobertoSalvatti]

Man, you are really into the topic eh.., you are even wearing a helmet.

[@CrustyTheElf]

Roberto Salvatti 😂😂😂

[@jakehegarty8339]

Roberto Salvatti lol

[@Tizi-br8th]

Roberto Salvatti i was drink my cup of coffee , its gonna take some time to remove residue from my keyboard lol

[@dublininnis9695]

There is a "mom" joke in there somewhere; after watching 2min.. so what your saying if you have a shorter stroke you hafta go a lot faster... got it

[@richierich4768]

Roberto Salvatti 😂😂😂 Can't stop laughing! My stomach hurts!

[@nickrobson9636]

Great stuff. However, you might also mention another advantage of dry-sump lubrication, and that is the oil can be cooled easier as it is taken (momentarily) right out of the extreme environment of the engine.

[@minhaajhussain972]

i am a mechanical engineer student. and i love your channel man. just love it. its like home

[@EngineeringExplained]

+Minhaaj Hussain Thanks!

[@barney9008]

+Engineering Explained As the pistons are shorter and the engines don't need to be as deep, (less metal) why are they drastically more expensive than regular engines I see how the valve-train is more expensive as it is pneumatic and they have dry sumps, but it doesn't really explain how a normal car engine is $5,000 and an F1 engine is $200,000

[@Irishluckily]

+Robert Perry Racing engines are more durable as they must be stressed for long durations. The ability to redline, everything is forged andor billet, tighter tolerances which increases manufacturing costs (directly relating to product costs), the valve train system is more complex, the specs of the engines, and just because as with everything inflated costs because even building engines for the sole purpose of racing is a business.

[@barney9008]

Anthony Rs Cheers I suppose so, they would have allot of overhead and a relativity small market, must get their money's worth. If they mass produced and there was enough demand for car enthusiasts you could probably be able to sell them for 25,000 or possibly less. Supply & demand at the end of the day.

[@dingusmagee3326]

+Robert Perry Got to remember, these engines are at the absolute cutting edge for internal combustion motors, using exotic materials, extremely advanced manufacturing methods. There are several documentaries here on KZbin specifically about Formula 1 engines, you should watch some. It is quite incredible the amount of work that goes into developing and manufacturing a F1 engine.

[@EngineeringExplained]

FIA Formula 1 regulation "5.17.5 Camshafts must be manufactured from an iron based alloy." Rotational mass is much easier to deal with than reciprocating mass (like push-rods). Camshafts are not the limiting factor in high rpm engines, if anything it would come down to valve springs (hence the use of pneumatic valves), airflow, and time for combustion. Also, the term "critical mass" really has no context here.

[@loongcat6500]

This guy taught me more than my high school engineering teacher did all year...

[@1sttvbn]

😂

[@EngineeringExplained]

Yep, I have a video explaining the otto cycle specifically, against a typical diesel cycle.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Awesome! I've since moved west and now reside in Oregon. Enjoyed my years at State!

[@jonathonbellmer1846]

Wow man I've been watching your Videos for years now i subscribed when u had less then 20k subscribers. Im pretty knowledgeable when it comes to engines but you've taught me a lot of the years and I thank you for that. Also I had no Idea you lived in Oregon!! That's awesome I live in Southeast Portland east of the river from downtown. What part of Oregon do u live in?

[@EngineeringExplained]

Check out the Bernoulli principle, or my video on diffusers. The intake is essentially acting as a diffuser. Dropping velocity, and thus increasing pressure.

[@NGC-7635]

I’m happy when I understand almost 70% of an Engineering Explained video. Sometimes I watch them and just space out and then I’m like “well...onto the next video XD”

[@EngineeringExplained]

They may be titanium or another light strong material. Valve float typically is a result of the springs oscillating, almost randomly, at higher RPM, not having enough time compress and stretch out. The pneumatic valvetrain, as shown in the video, plays a big part (if not the biggest part) of allowing for high RPM. Once again, a small stroke is important as well.

[@kcsombrio]

I always wondered how these (now old) engines could achieve such high RPMs and what would be the valve system that could close them fast enough. I guess this is the same system that should be used in motorcycle engines to achieve almost the same level of RPMs. Thanks for the video and the great work, I like them much 'cause you can make them short, objective, and with great level of details, what is difficult to do.

[@mattbalsterholt7580]

His knowledge is what a true performance tuner should have not just "well it's got a skunk 2 badge and says stage 3 so it must be better". You have parts slippers and then you have true technicians. I love your videos brotha! I hope you have many more years of them!

[@theram8787]

debris is a big part on why the air box is so high, also serves as part of its roll cage.

[@nathanberry8965]

Finally a coment that benefits society. Now i am smarter

[@caboose-mb1ob]

+The Ram "cage"

[@dankbeast9013]

+Harinder Singh the ram cage?

[@HUBBABUBBADOOPYDOOP]

*YOU WILL MAKE A WONDERFUL PROFESSOR/ENGINEER SOMEDAY- KEEP IT UP!*

[@DanteTheAbyssalBeing]

This video doesn't deserve all these dislikes. It's a good video if you want to learn about the older engines.

[@erichadaway2980]

Dan Bert h

[@abstractapproach634]

+Micky agreed, cats

[@alex2wr]

I'd like to add that in a naturally aspirated engine, volumetric efficiencies (VE) higher than 1 are very commonly achieved in today's engines. VE is not constant, it changes with engine RPM and is tuned at the intake and exhaust. I think VEs as high as 1.3 have been achieved in naturally aspirated engines.

[@superoxidedismutor]

For anyone watching in 2015: it's now a turbocharged 1.6L 90° V6, anyone knows the specs of the turbo?

[@soraaoixxthebluesky]

1.6 litre 90° V6 Single Turbocharged with Energy Recovery System (MGU-K & MGU-H) 33 seconds approx. at 4Mj per lap. 8 speed seamless sequential (non- automated clutch). Rev limit @15,000rpm.

[@soraaoixxthebluesky]

not to mention direct injection system. its all about high power and less fuel consumption. drawback? vacuum cleaner sounds

[@carsrcool7149]

+azrul nizam its a pos... how about 100mpg MINIMUM .. 500 Horsepower MINIMUM and 2500 RPM MAXIMUM .... oh .. the oh so smart F1 guys cant do that ???guess they are not to smart after all ..: (

[@tylerbonser7686]

+CarsRcool there is a different between smart and possible.

[@carsrcool7149]

tyler bonser yes... they are not smart enough to make it possible.. Cheers... and have a nice day : )

[@LitenSkada]

bore/stroke ratio is high, that configuration is called over square, meaning the bore diameter is over twice the stroke in this case. Great that you explained pneumatic valves for high rpm engines. Tip, add: Piston speed (about 40m/s) + piston acceleration from top dead center, impressive stuff + possible a bit more about the RAM effect from ram air box at higher speeds. Well dome my friend, very glad to see spreading of this type info. Warms my heart, please keep this up and educate people.

[@oxOsicknessOxo]

You forgot to talk about precision tolerance and that the F1 engine are pre-heated usually the night before, because the parts are machined for precise fitment at working temperature, starting a F1 engine at cold would wear it. Precision tolerance = more power. Even the spark plugs have usually different length, where on the F1 plugs the difference between the longest and the shortest is about 0,051 millimeter. With all the parts made with as much precision on a F1 engine this is how it achieve that much power from such little engine size.

[@nathanberry8965]

This is the most significant difference between normal engine and f1 engine. In normal engine combustion leaks past piston. In f1 engine the gap between piston and cylinder is so tiny that almost no combustion leaks past. Tollerances in f1 can be as tiny as millionth of an inch. Also better engineered tolerances in other parts of engine decreases friction loss

[@gigagdragoon2345]

They actually can't start a cold engine, its not possible to

[@bh8671]

A cold f1 engine is pretty much a seized engine. You can’t start a cold f1 engine.

[@EngineeringExplained]

So how does the engine start? The exhaust is closed for the majority of the intake stroke (you don't want to pull in air and send it right out the exhaust).

[@flaviu.c]

I think we need an updated version of this video.

[@carlh7795]

Good vid. One small correction. You can get over 100% cylinder fill (volumetric efficiency) without a supercharger or turbocharger. It's a big reason why intake valves start to open before the exhaust valve closes and the intake valve closes after the piston has started coming up from BDC (suck, squeeze, bang, blow). The inertia of the incoming air in the intake tract causes the air to 'stack' up in the cylinder. So even though the piston is coming up from BDC, air/fuel is still flowing into the cylinder for a bit because the air is flowing into it and its momentum keeps it flowing a bit even after 100% cylinder fill has been achieved.

[@GarretKrampe]

3:35 The pressure decreases not increases. the temp decreases are pressure drops if you use the Universal ideal gas equation PV=nRT where: P is the pressure of the gas V is the helle of the gas n is the amount of substance of gas (also known as number of moles) R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant, equal to the product of the Boltzmann constant and the Avogadro constant. T is the temperature of the gas In SI units, P is measured in pascals, V is measured in cubic metres, n is measured in moles, and T in Kelvin (273.15 Kelvin = 0.00 degrees Celsius). R has the value 8.314 J·K−1·mol−1 or 0.08206 L·atm·mol−1·K−1or ≈2 calories if using pressure in standard atmospheres (atm) instead of pascals, and volume in liters instead of cubic metres. It is conservation of mass and inertia. mass is density x Volume m=dV inertia is mass x velocity p=mv Hence the inertia of the gas over a larger area is the same as the smaller area and for this to be true the smaller area MUST have a higher speed and the larger area. It also follows that the pressure is LESS as the volume increases. Good video, just a small correction when you are presenting your research.

[@LMF5000]

I believe you are incorrect. First of all, inertia is not conserved in a diffuser (aka a divergent nozzle). You actually get a net thrust force on the diffuser as air flows through it, due to the change in momentum. However the *mass* of air IS conserved... but it is slowing down as it progresses through the diffuser (aka a "divergent nozzle"). Reason for this is the simple equation for gas flow in a passage: mass flow rate (kg/s) = gas density (kg/m3) * gas velocity (m/s) * area of gas stream (m2) or, rearranging: velocity = flow rate / (density * area). Since mass flow at any point along the diffuser must be constant, then it means that increasing the area of the passage results in lower velocity (the video is correct - the intake hole is smaller than the exit hole, hence lower velocity air is fed into the engine than the velocity coming into the intake). As for why a lower velocity results in higher pressure - that's Bernoulli's law. Best look up the actual equation because it's a little long to write here, but it basically arises from keeping energy in = energy out. So if your exit flow has got less kinetic energy due to its lower velocity, it must have a higher pressure (potential energy). Simplifying Bernoulli's equation (cancelling out equal terms like mass flow rate & height) - from the wikipedia article: kinetic energy + potential energy = constant [0.5 * velocity^2] + [pressure/density] = constant Let input pressure = p|in; output pressure = p|out; input velocity = v|in; output velocity = v|out Then the above becomes: 0.5 * v|in^2 + p|in/rho = 0.5 * v|out^2 + p|out/rho Rearranging: p|out = rho * (p|in/rho + 0.5*v|in^2 - 0.5 * v|out^2) p|out = p|in + 0.5*v|in^2 - 0.5*v|out^2 Since we've already established that v|out is smaller than v|in due to the mass flow rate equation (above), then from the p|out equation above, you can see that p|out will be bigger than p|in (you are adding a net positive quantity to p|in to get p|out).

[@JUNIOR43950]

LMF5000 wow. That's a big research.

[@zanick2]

***** its not an airfoil , or venturi. the air flow flows based on differential pressure. what you say is true for wings and airfoils, but not true for the intake ram tower. through out the intake system, the air does speed up and slow down but its all a fraction of the source intake pressure.

[@zanick2]

you are confusing the air speed of the intake air at the entrance, to the pressure drop at the entrance of the engine cylinder ports. in that "intake" lets say the engine is not even running. whats happening? the entire chamber is at the ramp pressure.... say .4psi at 160mph. if cylinder speeds were all going 160mph and independent of each other, then the air would be at a constant pressure from entrance to the cylinder entrance. again, this is not a venturi comparison where some of the intuitive air flow gas laws apply.

[@EngineeringExplained]

BSFC is probably the most critical factor in determining how efficient an engine is. Power/size doesn't really tell you much, but typically if this is higher the engine is going to be compact for it's power output, which can be beneficial.

[@af235]

MAN! i just learned a lot in 8 1/2 minutes. TY very much for the tutorial. ive always wanted to know and now i do know!

[@EngineeringExplained]

Happy to hear it, thanks for watching! New explanations every Wednesday. :)

[@kevilmavani8952]

Angelo Foster

[@agello24]

yes?

[@th1nk_outside]

keep in mind that f1 engines changed a lot since 2012, they are now smaller v6 hybrids

[@Ulexcool]

Tutorial, WTF? 🤣

[@Ferraridude13]

Heard about dry sump vs wet sump system many times before but never quite understood it, this guy just explained it perfectly in one minute. Thank you

[@nickshawn11]

Volumetric efficiency or intake ratio (as I like to call it) on naturally aspirated engines can easily achieve greater than 100%. The poppet valves create pressure nodes of high density air which the engine can pull in. When high VE/IR occurs depends on the intake runner and intake manifold design. Without this principal, a F1 engine would not produce very much power nor would it achieve 18,000 RPM.

[@mellowolf]

Your right.. The pro stock engines we have worked on, all have achieved greater then 100% V.E ..I'd like to add that it's not only the intake system design, but also exhaust system scavenging and cam timing. You have to have all three systems designed properly to get greater then 100% V.E.

[@DocClive]

james cole is right. The intake's role played on achieving above 100% VE is just as important as the exhuast's role. Scavenging can create a huge vacuum essentially Dysoning more air into the cylinders. Oh physics.

[@emanuelliracingengines9722]

The only 3 comments that are worth money in the hole thread.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

The diffuser is immensely important for greater than 100% VE. Yes, you can get there with scavenging and timing, but only for a fairly short rev range, to get the 4000 RPM powerband that F1 engines have you need the high pressure plenum as well.

[@EngineeringExplained]

They are naturally aspirated small displacement engines, so in order to compensate for the low torque, they must rev high to produce high power.

[@rivernet62]

I am not sure you want to describe air flow that way, being "pulled" in. Air can only be pushed. Similarly, by what argument can you say that a slowing of air flow results in greater pressure? Air flows from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure.

[@Anonymous12465]

I'm trying to understand this too... How does air, which is being forced into a larger volume have more pressure than in the smaller volume?

[@kbdkbd99]

The airbox slows the air down - due to the large air intake chamber. Think about the Bernoulli principle and an aircraft wing. Where is the air flowing faster ? Underneath the wing or over it ? Think about the pressure acting on the wing from that air. I hope you'll agree that the air underneath the wing is slower and that's where the pressure is greater ! I think the way he desribed it isn't the best.

[@rivernet62]

+Peter Rhodes If the air pressure at Wide Intake were greater than that at Narrow Intake, air would be flowing up and out. Gases move from areas of high pressure to low. Yes?

[@kaiservilhelm1]

I'm no expert on fluid mechanics, but fluid can flow from low to high pressure regions because of the momentum of the air itself. The pressure gradient will result in a force towards the lower pressure region of the narrow intake, and therefore an upwards acceleration. However, as the air has a downwards velocity the acceleration acts only to slow the air down, not cause it to reverse direction and flow upwards towards the intake. This means that the air is moving slower and has a higher pressure when it is sucked into the wider intakes.

[@Anonymous12465]

kaiservilhelm1 The air is moving slower, yes, (which I don't understand the purpose behind), but I don't understand how the air in the chamber could have a higher pressure. Yes, the air has momentum, in which case reducing that moment by some amount may not have significantly affect performance.

[@leonardjones3461]

This video is very instructive. I am just an air and gas compressor mechanic, so I understand the basic concept of volumetric efficiency. All compressors are rated in terms of free air displacement. But actual displacement falls as the pressure increases. When I was 9 years old I fell in love with the Ferrari Marque after reading a number of car mags back in 1965. One of my favorite books is a full-color glossy coffee table book called Ferrari: The Man And His Machine. In the book, I read that dividing valve train mass is also a means of achieving higher RPM. Since I cannot afford 70+ million for a 250 GTO or 30 or 40 million for a 250 Testa Rossa, I set my lottery win bucket list a little lower. There is an English car maker that is selling a mid-engine LS3 powered stroker (415 CI) with a Whipple supercharger that cranks out 1,020 HP. It is called the Ultima Evolution. Here is my question: Mercury Racing (the speedboat guys) have recently produced cog-belt driven 4 valve DOHC heads for the LS3. Not knowing the redline of the car and knowing that a stroked engine is probably over-square, how would this effect RPM and HP values assume no change to the drive train?

[@StormCentre88]

Provided there is no ram effect (which you suggest is the case) and/or that the engine is not consuming less air than the intake collects; I'm not sure that the (air) pressure will increase as the incoming air reaches the larger cross section areas of the air intake. I think that you will find that the air pressure will decrease as it reaches the larger cross section area of the intake collector. Perhaps a little beyond the scope of your presentation; but the intake collector is quite a sophisticated device that actually performs several functions, including serving to form the function of and/or even "priming" the intake plenum chamber - which (a correctly designed intake plenum) itself can assist to increase the non-static compression ratio (and therefore torque) via the phenomena of "intake-gas-flow-resonance".Also, the reason for a large (or over-square) bore is to facilitate both, (1) a large valve surface area and also (2) sufficient gas flow characteristics; which comes back to volumetric efficiency. Without a *sufficient valve surface/curtain area/diameter it would be pretty much impossible to achieve the high gas-flow characteristics required for both, the desired volumetric efficiencies at/and also rotational crankshaft speeds above, say, 12K/rpm. In some cases *this design consideration (and eliminating shrouding) will even outweigh design considerations (that may be - in isolation - really appealing) related to both a longer stroke and the increased torque it can bring; due to the fact that volumetric efficiency (which is directly related to torque) usually drops off as a piston engine climbs up into its upper rev limit and provides less time for cylinder filling. The Cosworth DFV (in, I think, the 1960's) pretty much pioneered and proved most of these above-mentioned axioms with high performance V8 F1 engines. However, by the 1970's the turbocharged era was pretty much upon us and with it came new design approaches to instantaneous, composite, and other torque generation within high performance and high revving F1 engines. If you really want to challenge yourself, you should have a look at bore/stroke and conrod length ratios, and how they apply to high performance valve-train design principles. Aside from that keep up the good work.

[@EIectroHouze]

I agree with you on how the air pressure entering the air intake above the driver's head goes from high pressure to low pressure, not the other way around. I feel it is designed that way because when a gas goes from high pressure to low pressure, the gas' temperature decreases, therefore making it possible to fit more oxygen molecules into each intake stroke.

[@sera56jase]

+Jim Stanley Air pressure decreases as air speed increases, and vice versa. It's one of the many laws of physics. He is correct about the air intake.

[@eggnogfrog]

+Clyde McDonald It's like a carburetor in reverse. In a carb you're necking down the incoming air stream to decrease the pressure. So the atmosphere pushes fuel through the carb. In this case it's in reverse. The incoming air stream is opened up. Which increases the pressure. It's counter intuitive. Check out the Venturi Effect.

[@StormCentre88]

+Newman Noggs I understand that, but please read my caveats as they give an insight into some other (oft overlooked) reasons why there is greater pressure in the larger cross-sectional areas of the intake. Fluids slowing down are not always necessarily associated with greater pressure, as shown by the water exiting a pinched hose that reaches the end of its trajectory and cascades to the ground. As in that case - whilst the water's velocity has slowed down considerably from the hose's exit pinched/point - the water pressure will still have not increased and as such it will remain equal to the atmosphere's. So, there you have an example of a fluid slowing down but not increasing in pressure; opposite to how air is said to behave within the intake collector. If you hung the F1 intake collector from the belly of an aircraft and measured the pressures throughout it, I think you would probably realise none or a negligible pressure difference to - that when the F1 intake collector was mounted to the engine/vehicle and all the many "systems/circuits" that are, together, considered to constitute the entire intake/air-flow system; when the F1 intake collector is initially designed. Cheers.

[@StormCentre88]

+Newman Noggs Just realised your last comment (to which I replied) was not directed at me. Apologies there . . . the way my phone lays out the web-pages leave a lot to be desired. Interesting subject though isn't it?

[@highvelocity123]

I have watched a few of your video's now. And I have to say I am very impressed. Most kids your age haven't a clue and nor do they want one. Continue your passion.

[@peteacher52]

Clear and concise; very helpful and useful.

[@EngineeringExplained]

The purpose of the high intake is to get clean (no particles from the road, tires, etc), laminar (non-turbulent, undisturbed) air. Yes, cool air rises, but that said 3 feet hardly makes any difference. However, if it's a sunny day the track could be fairly warm, so air a few feet up may be a bit cooler than right above the track.

[@music9556]

basicly the pistons are humming cus of the short stroke

[@dankbeast9013]

and im done

[@jerryhoban]

Pistons go brrrrr

[@euandykes]

I believe the air intake also acts as crash protection if the car rolls, something that needs to go higher if the nose goes lower. Really good video! Keep it up.

[@vladbagdasarov1672]

Thanks for having an informative and understandable video. My question is this, my buddy owns a Yamaha R6 which redlines at 17,500 rpm. Is uses a longer stroke and valve springs. Any idea how Yamaha accomplishes this?

[@EngineeringExplained]

I googled it, apparently has a much larger bore than stroke, as I'd expect for such a high revving engine: Bore × stroke, 65.5 mm × 44.5 mm

[@desmo750f1]

You hit problems with valve springs when the frequency they are being operated at matches the resonant frequency of the spring. Bigger springs, required for heavier valves, have lower resonant frequencies so will "float" at lower revs. The valves in the R6 are very small compared to F1 valves so the valve springs are smaller and have a higher resonant frequency, much higher than the frequency they are being compressed at. The gas springs in F1 engines have a very high resonant frequencies so no risk of valve float.

[@ShawnDickens]

there are other valve spring tricks. now beehive Springs are common and reduce retainer weight while having only some of the spring at the same large size. now they are working on conical Springs that will not have one coil that matches the other so resonating in one coil will not have an effect on the others. just waiting on PAC or PSI to start making them.

[@ankittuli1746]

use camless

[@ShawnDickens]

All designs without cams so far have had issues. The mechanical one wouldn't rev passed somewhere around 12k and the electronic ones draw to much power.

[@fastone371]

The info on here is pretty accurate for the most part. Couple of minor things though, F1 teams would pressurize the incoming airflow to use a ram air effect if they were permitted, however it is outside the regs to do so. The other inaccuracy was the volumetric efficiency, its possible that F1 cars have low V/E due to the high RPMs but in other forms of motorsport it is possible to achieve over 100% V/E in naturally aspirated engines with cam overlap intake design, header/exhaust design & etc..

[@cameronleonard6387]

5:05 wheres the desmos at? lol

[@Doosterify]

Good informative video. One thing I will say is I'm pretty sure there are naturally aspirated engines that exceed 100% VE. Its not going to occur over a wide rpm range but with very carefully engineered intake runners and cylinder head ports it creates inertia of a column of air so when the piston reaches the bottom of its travel on the intake stroke the column of air has built up enough inertia to keep moving and keep filling the cylinder even though the piston is no longer pulling the air in. This is how a tunnel ram intake commonly seen on drag race V-8 engines work.

[@andeandeande5053]

i love all ur videos,learn so much from u thank you for everything :)

[@ruanrocharbr]

Formula 1

[@ztwntyn8]

n/a engines can go over %100 with multi angle valve job and or ram tuning.

[@AsaSpadeSS]

+ztwntyn8 haha! what?! nonsense

[@ThickCutOhio]

+AsaSpadeSS Pro stock NHRA have 5 litre V8s that are N/A and achieve volumetric efficiency over 100%

[@AsaSpadeSS]

+Michael Ware (Creative Chaos) I never said it wasn't possible. I can see that for Pro Stock, but not because of a valve job and ram air intake.

[@ThickCutOhio]

Actually the cylinder head work was the reason for having high VE. The valves are machined to the point where the barely seat during maximum compression of the compression stroke. it's sort of a secret but that the gist of it( i used to work for Jeg Coughlin) But ram air does have nothing to do with it.

[@richardbossman9875]

N/A engines can have over 100% VE BUT it requires perfect tuning of the intake side and the exhaust side along with port and camshaft design. Ideally the exhaust side components (camshaft specs, exhaust port and exhaust system would work to evacuate as much of the exhaust gases as possible while on the intake stroke the combination of intake design, port design and intake camshaft specs would allow enough intake charge air velocity to actually pressurize the cylinder before the intake valve closes. Intake manifolds play a big part of this because if they are designed correctly the take advantage of second order (and even third order) Helmholtz resonance which reflects pressure waves that bounce off the valve back at the intake port at the precise moment the valve starts opening again for the next intake cycle.

[@EngineeringExplained]

That's the definition of a diffuser... a diffuser is a device which increases the pressure of a fluid by slowing it down, opposite of a nozzle.

[@traphomebaby]

damn what kinda bowl you use for that cut

[@robbo580]

salad

[@dontblink_6]

F1 uses high revving no torque engines cuz the car is already light and wouldn't get much use from the excess torque. Plus more torque may require a beefier engine that would make the car too heavy and cumbersome.

[@brannenb5993]

Can I swap an F1 engine into my Honda?

[@EngineeringExplained]

Yeah

[@MiguelGarciaB23]

+Brannen Batulan don´t change your engine from a Mclaren-Honda engine, it migh push less than yours :_)

[@eel1331]

+Engineering Explained this is mechanical engineering correct?

[@MrSkyl1ne]

+Brannen Batulan If you had the money, you could, but what this video doesn't tell you are the following things: An F1 engine has a very short lifespan, so taking your engine out to revise it completely every 1000 km is not the best thing in the world. An F1 engine needs high airflow to get cooled enough to work. If an F1 car doesn't go fast enough the engine will overheat. The average racecar driver is not able to make an F1 car go fast enough to keep it cool. Unlike other racecars, an F1 car has more grip when going faster. It can take corners at 250Km/h that it wouldn't be able to make at 150km/h just because it would spin out due to lack of downforce. This is the reason many racecar drivers are not able to drive an F1 car fast enough because it goes against all logic for other racecars. An F1 engine also has such small tolerances that the pistons are stuck inside the cylinders if the oil is cold. The engine needs to be warmed up by an external oil heater.

[@AndyZULUL]

+MrSkyl1ne is a fking joke chill out

[@EngineeringExplained]

Well, if the air is super dense, but your engine certainly doesn't want to be that cold. Your best efficiency is when the engine is warmed up and properly lubricated, which requires the oils to be warm.

[@kabalu]

nice helmet

[@shannons1886]

Loved this video. First time viewer. Your delivery is strangely soothing.

[@Kcburnit]

do you even physics bro? In regards to the intake scoop of course it acts like an air ram. The engines air consumption speed at 18000 RPM is going to be 21600 liters per minute or 21.6 cubic meters per minute. at a top speed of 360 km/h or 6000m/min the opening of the intake would only have to be 36cm² or .0036m²(that's the size of a lemon) in area to keep up with flow rate. and since we can all see the opening of a average Formula 1 car is closer to 225cm² or .0225m² (the size of a melon) with unrestricted flow we would get 135m³ of airflow through that opening. even taking into account the air filter and assuming it cuts down the air flow by even 75%(which would be a crappy or clogged filter) we still get 33.75m³. that's over 150% of the rate of flow of the engines maximum capability. so of course we're going to have a positive pressure inside which is exactly what a ram air intake does. *drops mic*

[@cmaylo]

Do you even F1 bro? In 1994 the FIA made changes to the airbox to eliminate the ram-air effect. Regardless, F1 cars are turbocharged now, so there's no need for ram-air effect to get positive manifold pressure.

[@Kcburnit]

+Dale Cmaylo no I do notF1. but I do physics and when I heard him say that it does not act as a ram-air. I was skeptical. I had to do the math to verify. and discovered that he was very very wrong. and I'm pretty sure I explain that very well in my previous comment. I realized that the F1 engine has changed a lot since the 2.4 naturally aspirated is now running a 1.6 V6 Turbo. so you're absolutely right you would not need a ram air to increase manifold pressure. but then we're talking about two different engines now aren't we.

[@shi01]

They changed it back for the 95 season after it had hardly any effect at the power of the engines. The ram-air effect is often wastly overestimated. The whole ram effect thing just starts to get intresting at at least half the speed of sound. The pressure increase at 360km/h is less than 6% and at 300km/h about 4%. So on an average track they had about a 4% pressure increase in the manifold at 2 or 3 spots at the track, every where else it was even less than that. And a 4% pressure increase doesn't even mean you get 4% more power out of the engine. The whole effect gave them maybe 10-20hp more than when the car would have been stationary.

[@texarcana2002]

shi01 and Kcburn: Ram air does work (see SR-71 Blackbird when it switches over from turbine to ram-jet operation). However, the problem with ram-air is when the airflow stalls, or the air being ingested is slower than the airflow at the entrance of the port: the entire airbox baxks up, and stalls out at the entrance, and the airflow actually can separate and go AROUND the opening, and actually scavenge the stalled air out of the port (this comes from Ferrari's book on the 2000 F1 car, published in 2003), which bascially will starve the engine. So, instead of trying for a ram-air effect that can only work at certain speeds and RPMs, they set up the air boxes in such a way that there is ALWAYS enough air to feed the engine at any RPM, especially high; and they do that with a flow port on the back side of the airbox that allows the air that isn't needed to flow out, maintaining a supply of fresh air in the air box at all road speeds and RPMs. Which is still important, even now with the turbo engines.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Bernoulli's principle states the opposite of what you're saying. With a decrease in velocity the pressure goes up.

[@berticusmaximus00]

Rip screaming v8s,v10s,and especially 12s

[@malikemad4]

New engine bad , old engine good

[@nicholasfink8159]

Just want to say I've watched your channel for some time now and I really appreciate all that you do for us viewers. Thank you

[@hillbilly4895]

thought F1 changed to 1.6L V6's?...or something?

[@klausklauser600]

the vid is from 2012 ^^

[@OlivierMyre88]

Wow Jay you came a long way man!

[@kb25j]

So...what's the life expectancy of one of these engines?

[@gigagdragoon2345]

For those v8s, they had to last at least 2 race weekends at first, reliability is more stressed now.

[@yaeshraj]

They used to be designed to barely last a race to save the maximum weight possible so ~300-500 km. In recent times they have put forward engine replacement restricitions to make the sport fairer for poor teams so the engines have to last on average 3-5 weekends or about 4000 km. :)

[@dmedeiros1768]

the engines have to last at least 3 races i believe

[@vinodude1]

"Back in the day," an engine lasted for one race. Anything more than that would be considered "overengineering." They even had special engines for qualifying, also known as "grenades," that were good for a dozen laps.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Because you're expanding the smallest space at this point (as well as the exhaust scavenging). Hear me out for a second. You have a vacuum in the piston at TDC before you start pulling in air. If the piston is to move down an equal distance from the top of the cylinder head, it effectively doubles the vacuum. The peak may come from exhaust scavening, but the entire process of moving the piston down allows for a continuation of this vacuum.

[@patterdalezipsuzilil]

I thought f1 engines are hybrid 1.6 cc and have been for 3 years ?

[@quakermaas]

The video was posted in 2012

[@thepwee]

then he should update the video...forget this old crap

[@EngineeringExplained]

It has a certain range that it stays within, yes. But the overall quantity (mass) that goes into the cylinder is what's important.

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

why not use 2-stroke engines for F1 ? It would give double the power compared to a 4-stroke. Maybe because it's too dirty?

[@roadrunnerblink]

As far as I can tell, 2-stroke engines are only more powerful than 4-strokes when we are talking about small engines e.g. 125cc-350cc. Above that I believe the 4 strokes begin to take over. I could be totally wrong though.

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

2-stroke engines have one working stroke every revolution, 4-stroke engines only have 1 working stroke every 2 revolutions. Therefore, averaged over time, they only produce half the power when compared to a 2-stroke engine with the same displacement. This will hold regardless of size. However, more unburned HCs will escape to the exhaust in 2-stroke. This makes them comparetively dirty. The effect and other losses may be influenced by size, but I'm not sure.

[@roadrunnerblink]

ThomasHaberkorn Yeah 2 strokes have more working cycles but is each cycle as powerful as in a 4-stroke? (again I don't actually know the answer to that one) Also, maybe the issue with having a 2-stroke powering a formula 1 car is the lack of Torque? The power band is very narrow in a 2-stroke engine so it would require a lot of gear changing from the driver in order to keep the car pulling. 4-strokes distribute the power over a much wider rev range.

[@fairyheli2]

ThomasHaberkorn its to do with breathing, a 2 stroke has to get rid of exhaust and take in air at the bottom of the stroke (~1/3 to 1/2 a revolution), but a four stroke gets two entire strokes to get rid of exhaust and breath in air/fuel mix. I think that's why 2 strokes are unfavourable. either that or the FIA are dickheads who want to replace F1 cars with glorified V6 priuses.

[@YouTube.TOM.A]

A four stroke engine has natural separation between intake and exhaust gases except where valve overlap is designed into the operational character , a two stroke engine depends, to a significant extent on drafting and sweeping to evacuate and fill the chamber [ plus pressure differentials ] as the size of the piston increases these forces become less efficient and scavenging of exhaust gases is less productive.

[@stephencrisson3595]

It amazes me how complex these engines are truly is amazing how they get a Engine 2 rev out so high and perform the way they do‼️

[@andreas286]

The ram-air scoop still creates positive pressure because it takes in more air than the engine consumes. This back pressure makes it so the "spreading out" you refer to does not exist because the air essentially piles up inside that scoop so much so that some is also bled out to atmosphere. The correct position to get good air is key though. Good video.

[@EngineeringExplained]

No, based on the Bernoulli principle. Check out the differences between a nozzle and a diffuser. A nozzle increases velocity by dropping pressure. A diffuser slows the air down, and increases pressure.

[@datashade]

Excellent video! I was having trouble trying to wrap my head around a "pneumatic valvetrain" but once you explained it, it makes perfect sense. Such a simple design.

[@Bob5mith]

Volumetric efficiency is the ratio of intake air volume to 1/2 swept volume. Naturally aspirated street motors usually don't do better than 85% but race motors regularly exceed 100% due to the inertia of high velocity intake and exhaust combined with aggressive valve timing.

[@alex2wr]

Just read the description where it says volumetric efficiency above 1 is not common. I can't bring fact right this minute but every Honda VTEC brings volumetric efficiency past 1. And every modern car's engine has a tuned intake and exhaust to use the pressure waves in the manifold to charge the cylinder. Also the RPM at which peak torque happens, is when there's resonance in the system which is also when volumetric efficiency peaks.

[@specialross77]

Great video. Nice to watch somebody who knows what they are talking about and can articulate well.

[@sfletch9535]

Bro you are hands down the best at explaining things.

[@mostirreverent]

How do you get an increase in air pressure if the volume is increased in the air intake at the top of the pistons?

[@tjp353]

I'm no expert on this, but I can point you in the right direction. Check out Bernoulli's Principle. The Wiki page has a pretty good explanation.

[@mostirreverent]

thanks, I thought there was an inverse relationship. Like the vacuum due to a change from small to larger area/volume, used in Venturi tube.

[@TheEulerID]

The volumetric efficiency of normally aspirated engines can be raised about one by the use of resonance effects which create pressure waves. VEs of up to 130% have been reported on normally aspirated engines, but it requires very careful tuning of intakes and exhaust systems and only works across certain rev ranges, albeit that can be extended with variable valve timing. Some Porsche road cars had variable length intake systems to optimise resonance effects over a wider rev range.

[@skrappy73]

The high RPMs are mostly a result of the Flat Plane Crankshaft. I did not hear that in the presentation. Check those out! Great Work!

[@scottbarnes3156]

Actually what enables them to rev that is more the rod ratio, i.e., the ratio of the rod length to the stroke. Yes, the bore stoke ratio is a factor and the smaller the bore the easier is is to control the flame front and quench. The rod length will effect dwell. The longer the rod the longer the dwell and the more time you have to fill the cylinder and the longer time at TDC which effect peak horsepower due to the added length of time the expanding gasses have to impart their energy on the piston. The ability to increase ignition timing is also related to the bore, stoke and rod length. The sooner you can fire the mix generally the more energy you will get from it and the higher the cylinder pressure. Nice video, I love to see people getting the word out abou how things work and why. Keep up the good work! 👍 May I suggest the no you delve into why wider tires are used on performance cars. F=mN doesn’t tell the whole story. 😉 (m=mu)

[@EngineeringExplained]

I believe it may have to do with the design of the intake, which causes an increase in pressure (it's a diffuser) in relation to atmospheric pressure, which would then allow for a VE of greater than 120%. I'm not positive, but the logic seems sound.

[@EngineeringExplained]

Catalytic converters serve an incredibly important role, our air quality is immensely improved because of them. If they could be implemented without affecting airflow (which is somewhat impossible) than I wouldn't be opposed. Honestly I wouldn't be opposed in the first place, but I can see why others would from an efficiency standpoint.

[@ArthrusGigawitAnteon]

Yes. If you ever saw the Top Gear clip from a few years ago where Hammond drove the Renault F1 car, they explain during the clip that hot water and oil are cycled through the motor before it could be started.

[@Elitesniper257]

These are great videos! I'm only 15 and understand everything you talk about. I hope u keep making these videos. Thanks!

[@swesleyc7]

Great video - excellent explanation. As someone who knows a lot about engine function, I know nothing about F1, but I am eager to learn more so this helps.

[@odessaboy]

Dude, i've learned so much about cars from your videos.. huge fan of your channel.

[@graemelewis1884]

There absolutely IS a ram effect on the intake. That is how the divergent nozzle configuration allows a higher static pressure in the larger area section compared to the intake mouth (when the car is moving).

[@erikmathisen3352]

I rarely comment on videos, but these explanations are excellent! Huge thanks!

[@EngineeringExplained]

+Erik Mathisen happy to hear it, thanks for watching!

[@ScottHillsmusclecargarage]

Thank you so much for this video. I have a good understanding of the internal combustion engine. But I do not understand much about Formula One engines. This is been extremely educational without insulting someone's intelligence. Please keep up the good work. And I will be checking out more of your videos.

[@EngineeringExplained]

I disagree. Say the exhaust closes and the piston is somewhat near TDC. A compression ratio of 10:1 means that vacuum would increase by (up to) 10x once the piston was at the bottom. The piston certainly aids in creating the vacuum, and is likely the highest contributing factor.

[@shantanusangam6340]

3:33 If the relative volume of the air is increased, won't the pressure decrease (Boyle's Law). You claimed that if the air expands i.e spreading out (3:30), how will the pressure increase?

[@matthewjames7394]

I have watched most of your videos. You are smart! Good content and easy enough to follow along!

[@avainola]

@5:50 You say"Nitrogen because it keeps it pressure fairly constant with differences of temperature". Why is that, how it is better than Argon for exampe? PV=nRTfor all gasses? I think I've seen a same claim also on filing tyres. Is it just against air or how is nitrogen special, please explain.

[@Tha7Dude]

Why does the intake air have to be cool? You're heating it up anyways during the power stroke so if the airs already warm you can use less energy to bring it up to the desired temp.

[@EngineeringExplained]

"you can use less energy to bring it up to the desired temp." That means the car will do less work.

[@Tha7Dude]

Engineering Explained True, I guess that would help efficiency (fuel consumption) at the cost of a drop in power. It seems the rational for cooler air is greater air density in the cylinder and thus more energy can be taken from the combustion process of the gas and air.

[@snsofhumor]

also the reason for intercoolers to exist and for engines to work better in cold weather(but to start harder-another story). in the same volume of cold air there's more oxygen, than in hot. thus-burning is more effective.

[@SuperStig23]

Thank you for explaining some very sophisticated engine technology in words most old shady tree mechanics (like me) can understand when we are sober :) Good luck young man I'm sure you will have a bright future.

[@Obi-WanKannabis]

I've got a question. On topgear there was a segment where Jeremy Clarkson threw paintballs into the air scoop. And they were fired off the exhausts. How does that work? Does the air scoop lead directly into the exhaust?

[@Elitesniper257]

Maybe it goes through the whole combustion process just like the air and then is released through the exhaust. Just an idea.

[@zbay100]

I'm confused on the portion around 3:30 when you are explaining how slowing down the air increases pressure. My understanding is that pressure is a function of force over area , with force = mass*acceleration, so wouldn't slowing down the air decrease acceleration by creating a negative acceleration thus decreasing pressure?

[@shi01]

+Zack Bayhan Nope. Just look up "Bernoulli's principle". Yes, very counter intuitive, but that's the way it works.

[@andrewgonzalez5232]

Question: The nitrogen returns the valve to closed, but what is opening the valve? I've read in the past that solenoids were programmed to perform this function. Better control of the intake and exhaust event throughout the entire rev range. Is this the case or are most if not all F1 engines utilizing camshafts?

[@EngineeringExplained]

They use camshafts, much like other DOHC engines.

[@metrocaptain]

Is the nitrogen air in the valve train constantly charged by some type of device or bottle in this example, or is it sealed? Seems like it would be difficult to get a perfect seal with no leaks, but then again, this is a racing engine built to super high specs. Maybe some good mock-ups are in order.

[@donberg01]

Is there a system to keep each valve charged so the nitrogen has enough pressure to open the valves, or are the chambers pressurized at manufacture and sealed?

[@viveksuman8636]

As you said, the pneumatic system has a reduced weight. But in the pneumatic system, you have an additional piston in place a spring in the ordinary engine. Plus the weight of a piston would be more than that of a spring. This implies the weight of F1 engine is increased, which is contrary to what you said. Please explain this to me. Thanks