CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Sports › Formula 1 › NASCAR technical

NASCAR technical

Started by George Ramos15 · · 👁 16 views · 161 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants George Ramos15William Bennett53Jamie HallJason Campbell70Jacob White49Christian Harris11rowdyrider12dustycyclist19Tyler Bennett5Thomas Martin4darkmarlin16cosmiccyclist8ruggedhawk20stormybadger8mellowtiger83James Roberts87Kyle Edwards5Amanda Kellyvividlynx68Michael Diaz4Frank Collins85Karen Gomez55jadeseal7neonfox65 …
Jacob White49 Jacob White49 Member
16 messages
joined Oct 2014
#41 ·
Marmorini

“Marmorini. There are certain folks in Maranello who really ought to just stay quiet—people who love nothing more than shifting the blame onto others.”
There seems to be this persistent theory that every single struggle with the 14 F T stems directly from the power unit. It's almost as if, in a company with a legacy like Ferrari's, they've somehow forgotten the fundamental art of engine building! Look, I can handle just about any critique, but please—don't suggest that there are people at Maranello who don't grasp the core business, whether it's the turbo setup, the hybrid systems, or anything in between.”
"Let’s set the record straight. My colleagues and I designed a power unit of a specific scale—essentially a downsized version of what you'd see in a Mercedes or Renault—simply because that was the directive from the car's project manager, Mr. Tombazis "
"The mandate was clear: build us a very compact PU with small radiators. The logic? Any deficit in horsepower would be offset by superior aerodynamic solutions, giving us the edge over the Mercedes and Renault cars. And that is precisely what we aimed for—except, once we actually went head-to-head with the competition, we were left with significantly less Bhp and absolutely zero aerodynamic compensation!”
“I truly wished I could have explained this to Marco Mattiacci back when things were being implemented under Domenicali. However, in the three months since Mattiacci took over, we’ve barely crossed paths—we saw each other twice, once just to exchange pleasantries, and the second time when he handed me a letter confirming my departure from the company.”
"It seems Ferrari has chosen a path of handing the reins of the racing department to the unseasoned—those same inexperienced individuals who rely heavily on advisors who, frankly, haven't delivered a thing, yet enjoy unwavering confidence: Fry and Allison."
Christian Harris11 Christian Harris11 Member
11 messages
joined Jul 2014
#42 ·
It would honestly make more sense if they used one turbine and a separate wastegate. Though, if everything were designed perfectly, they could probably skip the wastegate entirely by using the MGU-H to basically "brake" the turbine and charge the batteries at the same time.
Jason Campbell70 Jason Campbell70 Veteran
1K messages
joined Jun 2017
#43 ·
Christian Harris11 said:It would make sense to have one turbine and a separate wastegate. Though, technically, they could function without a wastegate valve if the setup was right—specifically by using the MGU-H to "brake" the turbine and charge the batteries instead.


Theoretically, it could work without a wastegate at all.

Perhaps Ferrari opted for a simpler, more reliable MGU-H paired with a classic mechanical setup. It doesn't necessarily have to be purely mechanical; it could be electronically controlled.

It is interesting, though. Only Ferrari seems to have such a massive pipe leading to the wastegate, and looking at the photos, the wastegate itself looks quite bulky.

On the Mercedes and Renault cars, that pipe is much thinner:
image

image
stormybadger8 stormybadger8 Veteran
1.8K messages
joined Apr 2013
#44 ·
Is it just me, or are Red Bull Racing and Renault running Magneti Marelli electronics? 😁
Jason Campbell70 Jason Campbell70 Veteran
1K messages
joined Jun 2017
#45 ·
stormybadger8 said:Is it just me, or does Red Bull Racing—basically Renault—run on Magneti Marelli electronics?😁

A continuation of a long-standing, successful partnership. 🙂

Now, as for what part of the electronics is pure Renault and what belongs to Magneti Marelli... that’s likely something only Newey and a handful of his closest associates actually know.
Christian Harris11 Christian Harris11 Member
11 messages
joined Jul 2014
#46 ·
Kyle Edwards5 said:I don't quite follow your logic about these engines having identical torque curves—especially when you consider how differently they handle pre-loading and their non-standardized ERS setups—just because they all put out the same power.

It’s actually pretty straightforward; when you measure engine power on a dyno, what you're really measuring is TORQUE. A simple way to think about it would be using an electric brake motor where the stator sits on bearings and is held by a single lever to prevent the engine being tested from spinning it. You just measure the force needed to hold that lever steady, multiply it by the length of the arm, and there you have it—your engine torque in Nm. You could technically do this manually for various RPMs to find that balance point, though most people just let a computer handle those thousands of data points. In a real shop, the equipment is more sophisticated, but the physics remains exactly the same.

Once you have that mountain of data points, you just apply this formula to every single one:

HP = (Nm * RPM) / 5252

...and that gives you the power curve. It's that line we all obsess over when we're shopping for a car, even though it doesn't tell you much, and that peak horsepower number listed on the spec sheet is even less useful in the real world.

To touch on your point, having an engine that puts out the same power at, say, 12,000 RPM versus 15,000 RPM isn't the same thing at all. The first one will have higher torque, which means no matter how you tune the transmission, it’s going to feel more powerful. Every single point in that RPM range matters in the math, which might only lead to a tiny difference in peak numbers, but it makes a massive difference in lap times. When you throw fuel flow limits for different RPM bands, varying turbo boost, and complex ERS systems into the mix—all while trying to smooth everything out without losing traction—trying to extract maximum performance becomes pure science fiction.
mellowtiger83 mellowtiger83 Regular
466 messages
joined Aug 2014
#47 ·
Christian Harris11;54190156 said:It is quite simple. Engine power is measured using a dynamometer, which actually measures TORQUE. A basic setup would involve an electric brake motor where the stator sits on bearings, held by a single lever to prevent the engine being tested from spinning it. You measure the force required to hold that lever steady, multiply it by the length of the arm, and there you have it—the engine's torque in Nm. You can do this manually for various RPM ranges to find that equilibrium point... or, more realistically, a computer handles thousands of data points for you. In practice, the equipment is more sophisticated, but the principle remains the same.

Once you have that mountain of data, you apply the formula to every single point:

HP=(Nm * RPM)/5252

...and you generate the power curve. This is the graph everyone stares at and suffers through when buying a car, even though it tells you very little of substance, much like the peak numbers listed in the spec sheets, which are even less relevant.

On a related note, having an engine that produces the same horsepower at, say, 12,000 RPM versus 15,000 RPM is not the same thing. The former will have more torque, and regardless of how the transmission is tuned, it will always be the stronger unit. In the formula, every single RPM point matters significantly. While this might result in only a slight difference in peak figures, it provides a massive advantage on the track. Throw fuel flow restrictions per RPM range, varying turbo boost, and ERS systems into the mix—which you're constantly trying to balance to extract maximum performance without inducing wheelspin—and it becomes pure science fiction.
[/QUOT

If two engines deliver identical power, one at 12,000 RPM and the other at 15,000 RPM, they are equally fast; they just demand a different driving style. Power is power, and it is all about the curve.

Diesel engines generally produce the highest torque, but that doesn't make them the fastest. It simply means they have the raw strength needed to pull a heavy load—which explains why they are used for trucks. In a diesel, the mixture burns throughout the entire stroke toward TDC (top dead center), whereas in a gasoline engine, the mixture burns almost instantly.

Turbocharged engines generate higher torque because they pre-compress the air, leading to a more violent combustion of the mixture. Thus, higher torque.

Two-stroke engines also possess immense torque.

Having more torque does not inherently mean an engine is faster. Massive torque can actually be a liability in racing. We saw this during the turbo era of NASCAR, where cars struggled because the power wasn't delivered smoothly; instead, it arrived in uncontrollable surges of torque, which is the last thing a driver wants.

Therefore, if two engines share the same peak horsepower, they are equally fast, regardless of how much torque they develop at a specific RPM. They simply reach that power via different paths.

Power is the metric for the engine, not torque. Torque isn't "royal" power, and it depends on countless design factors: naturally aspirated, turbo, diesel, turbo-diesel, rotary, two-stroke, etc.
.

Consider this: a Ferrari V12 3500cc might have less torque than a Ford V8 3500cc. It has lower torque but higher peak power. You cannot conclude the Ford engine is slower just because its torque exceeds the Ferrari's. Theoretically, it is the opposite; the Ferrari engine is faster because it possesses more power (think Monza or Hockenheim), while the Ford engine is more versatile and operates across a broader RPM range.

So, power is one thing, and torque is another. Understood?
Christian Harris11 Christian Harris11 Member
11 messages
joined Jul 2014
#48 ·
Let's look at it this way. If you have a weak little truck and a car, both sitting at 200 hp, which one is actually going to pull more weight up a steep hill?

Power is really just a function of torque... physics told us that a long time ago, and it’s still true today. That formula I mentioned was basically invented at the same time as those laws, and honestly, we only talk about power because it makes things easier for people to grasp, especially when comparing it to electric motors, so that's where the confusion comes from.

I feel like you've completely twisted my point around by generalizing everything like this, and I really don't want to get dragged into a debate like that.

If we set aside things like friction and other variables, engines that share the same torque will essentially have the same pulling characteristics once you factor in the right gear ratios.

If you look at electric motors, you'll see how motors with different pole pairs—which means different rotational speeds—might be rated for roughly the same power due to industry standards, yet they have wildly different torque levels and physical sizes. It's much easier to wrap your head around it there because their torque curves are more or less identical regardless of size or power, making it clearer. (For instance, you can check out some online catalogs from companies like General Electric to see this in action)

I think I'm going to step away from this conversation since it's turning into a bit of an argument and moving away from the actual topic... if you dive into some actual technical literature, you'll see exactly what I mean. You can't really master the science without doing the reading.

Regarding the main topic, if we could actually see the torque and power curves for these engines, everything would become clear. Even if Ferrari is close to Mercedes in terms of peak power, there's so much more at play, specifically the shape of the curve and how they utilize the ERS. It's widely known that the Mercedes engine was designed to run at slightly lower RPM ranges compared to Ferrari and Renault, and that they rely heavily on the largest turbine to recover energy via the MGU-H... everything else is just guesswork. We saw a perfect example of how much engine mapping matters back in the day; even though Renault was arguably the weakest and Mercedes the strongest, Renault ended up being better despite being about 50 hp down, simply because they likely had a much smoother torque delivery that preserved the rear tires and transferred power to the track better, making them faster in race trim most of the time. Back then, the margins were slim and we didn't have five other complicating parameters to worry about.
mellowtiger83 mellowtiger83 Regular
466 messages
joined Aug 2014
#49 ·
If we were looking at a scenario where Mercedes and Renault were essentially identical, any distinction regarding torque curve application would be negligible. We're talking about the exact same configuration, the same cylinder count, and matching turbo boost levels—the difference would be practically nonexistent.

The discrepancy would only manifest if the delta existed solely through the ERS system. And even then, it wouldn't make much sense; they might as well just follow Formula E at that point. It’s nonsense.
stormybadger8 stormybadger8 Veteran
1.8K messages
joined Apr 2013
#50 ·
Torque is damn important. If you hit peak power at 12,000 RPM, that's incredible—but honestly, it’s way better than having that same power sitting up at 15,000 RPM.
It's pretty simple: in the real world of NASCAR, an engine peaking at 12,000 is always going to feel much stronger than one that waits until 15,000 to show up.
That’s why a NASCAR car isn't screaming at 15,000 RPM throughout a lap—not even for 2% of it (just look at the driver tracking data; they usually peak around 13k–14k)😉. They spend at least 30%, if not 50%, of the lap sitting right in that 10,000–12,000 range.
Plus, the engine with more grunt at lower RPMs is definitely going to kill it on acceleration when exiting corners.

You can actually see this playing out in the difference between Williams and Ferrari. Ferrari might even be faster over a single lap when they're out there solo, but if they're stuck behind a Williams, they're in trouble. Why? Because the Williams pulls away much harder coming out of the turns.
It doesn't even matter that Ferrari basically has the same top speed as Williams—so the engines might be close in raw output—but the Williams reaches that top speed way faster than the Ferrari does.😉
James Roberts87 James Roberts87 Active Member
61 messages
joined Mar 2011
#51 ·
stormybadger8 said:That’s exactly what you see when comparing Williams and Ferrari. Ferrari might actually be faster on a single lap when they have clear air, but if they're stuck behind a Williams, they're stuck. The Williams just pulls out of the corners much better and accelerates harder.
It doesn't even matter that Ferrari has practically the same top speed as Williams—the engines might be close in power—but the Williams gets to that top speed way faster than the Ferrari 😉

Honestly, it wouldn't matter if Williams was behind Ferrari; the result would be exactly the same.
Kyle Edwards5 Kyle Edwards5 Active Member
71 messages
joined Apr 2020
#52 ·
At the end of the day, I’ve got this feeling that the Mercedes engine is still significantly more powerful—probably because they have much better torque availability too—but Mercedes keeps it under wraps by running with way more downforce. They absolutely tear through those high-speed corners compared to everyone else... Honestly, I find it hard to believe their chassis is this much better than the rest of the field, especially since that was their biggest weakness for years...
Mercedes acts like they don't know what's going on, then drops little comments like how Ferrari caught up to them on power, just so they don't trigger any massive rule changes.
Monaco is going to be an interesting race, at least on paper. 😁
mellowtiger83 mellowtiger83 Regular
466 messages
joined Aug 2014
#53 ·
stormybadger8 said:Torque is damn important. If peak power hits at 12,000 RPM, that’s incredible—honestly, way better than having that same power sitting at 15,000 RPM...
for one very simple reason. In the real world of NASCAR, an engine peaking at 12,000 RPM is always going to be significantly more powerful than one peaking at 15,000.
That’s why a NASCAR car isn't running at 15,000 RPM throughout a single lap, nor even for 2% of it. If you actually bother to look at the telemetry on driver tracking, the RPMs peak around 13,000 to 14,000😉 , while they spend at least 30%, if not 50%, of the lap sitting between 10,000 and 12,000.
Furthermore, the setup with higher torque at lower RPMs is undoubtedly superior when accelerating out of a corner.

You can see this clearly in the gap between Williams and Ferrari. Ferrari might actually be faster over a solo lap, but if they're stuck behind a Williams, they’re stuck. The Williams just pulls away harder because its acceleration out of the turns is much better.
It doesn't even matter that Ferrari has practically the same top speed as Williams; the engines might be comparable in raw output... but the Williams reaches that top speed much faster than the Ferrari does.😉


Ferrari Tbf, don't embarrass yourself. Don't jump into an argument about things you don't understand. It really doesn't matter whether the power is delivered at 15,000 or 12,000 RPM if the total output is identical.

What you're talking about is torque delivery across different RPM ranges. For your information, not too long ago, cars were spinning at 19,000 RPM without any issue operating within a range of 13,000 to 19,000. RPM is simply a matter of engine configuration—displacement, cylinder count, V-type, inline, boxer, and about a hundred other variables.

If I have torque available at 13,000 RPM, I’m going to drive in that range. If it's available at 7,000, I'll drive there. You get it?

Power is power. If the numbers are the same, they're the same; it just comes down to how they reach those figures through different engine configurations.
Amanda Kelly Amanda Kelly Regular
360 messages
joined Mar 2008
#54 ·
mellowtiger83 said:...
Horsepower is horsepower. If the numbers are the same, they're the same—it just depends on how you hit those RPMs or how you tweak the engine configuration.

Power is power.
If it's equal, it's equal.
😵
Maybe if you put in a little effort, Mario, you could try writing something that actually makes sense technically and uses proper grammar.
It would be a nice change of pace.
mellowtiger83 mellowtiger83 Regular
466 messages
joined Aug 2014
#55 ·
Roger Wright94 said:Power is power.
If it’s the same, it’s the same.
😵
Perhaps if you, mellowtiger83, put a bit more effort into writing this both technically correctly and with proper grammar.
It would be appreciated.


If something isn't clear to you, then correct me.

800hp is 800hp. If two different engines both produce 800hp, they are more or less equally fast whether they are spinning at 20,000 or 7,000 RPM; the difference is simply that the power is achieved through different engine configurations.

The issue here is that someone claimed cars should have equal power but different torque. Why on earth would they need different torque if they were producing the same power from the exact same engine configuration? The only variable left would be the torque curve, and that is it. Simple.

People posting nonsense here is the real problem.
vividlynx68 vividlynx68 Active Member
118 messages
joined Apr 2008
#56 ·
There is this concept called "Area under the curve"—it’s easiest to visualize using an engine's power curve, where the area beneath that line tells the real story.

Take two engines—for instance, two I've driven quite a bit that are rated at almost identical outputs—the BMW M52b28 and the Toyota 2 ZZ-GE, both sitting right around 190 hp.

Now, once you actually drive them, you start wondering which idiot claimed they were equally powerful. One delivers power across the entire rev range, while the other requires you to scream past 5,500 RPM just to feel alive.

I doubt even a NASCAR car stays in its optimal RPM window all the time—which is exactly why this distinction matters.
mellowtiger83 mellowtiger83 Regular
466 messages
joined Aug 2014
#57 ·
I suggest you all take the time to read this and learn a thing or two about torque and how it actually functions in practice. The bottom line is simple: two cars with identical power and weight will be equally fast, period.
stormybadger8 stormybadger8 Veteran
1.8K messages
joined Apr 2013
#58 ·
mellowtiger83 said:Don't embarrass yourself. Stop arguing about things you clearly don't understand.

Maybe try reading and actually following your own advice for once. 😁
mellowtiger83 mellowtiger83 Regular
466 messages
joined Aug 2014
#59 ·
stormybadger8 said:Read and listen to your own advice 😁


Read your own post, unless you want me to paste it back here for you, 🤣
Michael Diaz4 Michael Diaz4 Active Member
154 messages
joined Nov 2009
#60 ·
mellowtiger83 said:Do yourself a favor and read this. It’ll teach you something about torque versus horsepower and how things actually work in the real world. Basically, if two cars have the same power and weight, they're equally fast. Period.

You clearly haven't a clue. There is an entire thread dedicated to horsepower and torque, so please don't make me count them out again...
If the moderator moves these posts to the technical section, then we can give a much more detailed explanation of what you missed and where you're getting it wrong...
stormybadger8 said:Maybe take your own advice for once. 😁

No, the main point is that he just struggles regardless of what he's driving. Last year he was in the best car on the grid, and this year he's in one of the nearly best ones...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads