iDomN8U

Not a F1 builder tho

ArchAngel2K

ill have to check up on that i have his drive to win book which one did that quote come from.
and Carol smith was a F1 driver at 1 point iDomN8u

ABCVTEC

Those F1 cars are torquey as shit. You think it's easy to rev through a 17k RPM range on the fly (given the size of the motors in them, at least). I think they are limited to like 2.4L or something? And are around 250-300lb-ft.

iDomN8U

and 700 hp+. They don't need torque since the car weights like 1300 lbs. It's more a balance then bias

AnthonyD1978

just throw a turbo hayabusa motor in the s2k...

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/02/...busa-v8-engine/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4HdsDZX6c

ZDan

Destroking will lose you power, guaranteed. Power potential is a linear function of both displacement and rpm. Displacement is a linear function of stroke. But rev potential is a function of the square root of stroke (loads go up linearly with stroke but with the square of rpm). So if you lose 10% stroke, you lose 10% displacement, but only gain 5% more capacity for revs. So you LOSE power to the tune of about 5%.

This is why stroking works and destroking doesn't.

circuitclub

^i like this guy

AngryTurtle

he said stroking

circuitclub

if its sex joke i get it, if its a technical one i dont..

moogleii

I agree, but I've always assumed it was relative anyway. They don't need torque compared to a heavier beast, but if your fellow F1 competitor is running 200-300 ft-lbs, and you're only running 100, you're gonna need more torque because it'll probably cost you the race otherwise.