FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

exactly, like my post said measured in NM which is what Torque is measured in.

[Gaz]

exactly, like my post said measured in NM which is what Torque is measured in.

Thrust is Mesured in Newtons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit_of_force)

Torque is Mesured In Newton Meters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_metre

[stonemonkey]

We seem to be talking about slightly different things here, I'm meaning the force the tyre rubber can exert on the tarmac (without slipping) to drive the car forward and fight against air and rolling resistance. That force can be measured in newtons and is what I would consider to be the thrust of an F1 car.

The diffrerences in the mechanisms of a jet engines and a propellers thrust is just as great as comparing either of those to rubber on tarmac.

If the car can accelerate 0-60mph in about 2.5 secs then that's something like 26m/s^2 although I know it's not linear and I'm not totally sure about the time either. The car weighs 605kg so the accelerating force (ignoring air and rolling resistance) would be something like 15.7 kN, including air and rolling resistance that value will be higher but as the speed increases it's possible that the force without slipping can be increased because the downforce takes effect but it's also going to vary as the engine goes through the revs and as the gear changes.

In the case of a jet engine to convert from lbs thrust to N thrust you multiply by something like 4.444 so an engine with 10,000 lbs thrust will have 44.44kN thrust. The eurofighter typhoon has 2 engines generating 90kN each.

[Gaz]

We seem to be talking about slightly different things here, I'm meaning the force the tyre rubber can exert on the tarmac (without slipping) to drive the car forward and fight against air and rolling resistance. That force can be measured in newtons and is what I would consider to be the thrust of an F1 car.

No thats NM not N which is torque.

[stonemonkey]

We seem to be talking about slightly different things here, I'm meaning the force the tyre rubber can exert on the tarmac (without slipping) to drive the car forward and fight against air and rolling resistance. That force can be measured in newtons and is what I would consider to be the thrust of an F1 car.

No thats NM not N which is torque.

As I said before, we're talking about slightly different things here, I'm talking about the (potential) tractive force between the contact patch of the tyre rubber and the tarmac which is measured in N.

[Gaz]

We seem to be talking about slightly different things here, I'm meaning the force the tyre rubber can exert on the tarmac (without slipping) to drive the car forward and fight against air and rolling resistance. That force can be measured in newtons and is what I would consider to be the thrust of an F1 car.

No thats NM not N which is torque.

As I said before, we're talking about slightly different things here, I'm talking about the (potential) tractive force between the contact patch of the tyre rubber and the tarmac which is measured in N.

Ye fair enough but thats what it needs to produce to simply move at a given speed you can't really apply that to a jet because there is no rolling resistance, drag etc.. acting against it

The jet engine can just sit there and produce thrust and the only resistance against it is the air at the exit of the jet.

hence why i said a fair test would be to attach a propeller to an F1 engine to mesure the thrust expelled from the prop?

[Frosty]

Hi guys I wonder if you can help me, I work for a television company and I need to find out how much thrust a formula one car produces, thought this would probably be the best place to find out. Does anybody happen to know? I understand it varies from engine to engine but I just need an idea.
Any help appreciated

As far as I’m aware a F1 car doesn't produce any thrust except for exhaust gases. you can compare the amount of engine power of a jet engine in a plane to a internal combustion engine in a car but it is bit complicated involving drag, acceleration as well as being pretty pointless and to be honest I’m too tired to go through the physics it is 2:30 am finally the biggest reason is that I can link you to pages that will explain better than I could anyway! http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ol-K ... &ct=result you can also use this page but quickly reading it seems like they treat the equations as if the plane was in a vacuum exposed to 0 drag http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pr ... 0195.shtml

[stonemonkey]

We seem to be talking about slightly different things here, I'm meaning the force the tyre rubber can exert on the tarmac (without slipping) to drive the car forward and fight against air and rolling resistance. That force can be measured in newtons and is what I would consider to be the thrust of an F1 car.

No thats NM not N which is torque.

As I said before, we're talking about slightly different things here, I'm talking about the (potential) tractive force between the contact patch of the tyre rubber and the tarmac which is measured in N.

Ye fair enough but thats what it needs to produce to simply move at a given speed you can't really apply that to a jet because there is no rolling resistance, drag etc.. acting against it

The jet engine can just sit there and produce thrust and the only resistance against it is the air at the exit of the jet.

hence why i said a fair test would be to attach a propeller to an F1 engine to mesure the thrust expelled from the prop?

Why is it ok to compare a jet engine which works on the same principle as a rocket (expanding gasses)to produce it's thrust with a propeller pushing against the air (or water or you could even get screws that work on dirt or tarmac) but it's not ok to compare it with rubber pushing against tarmac?

you can't really apply that to a jet because there is no rolling resistance, drag etc.. acting against it

No drag on a plane, really?

[stonemonkey]

OK, the OP is:

Hi guys I wonder if you can help me, I work for a television company and I need to find out how much thrust a formula one car produces, thought this would probably be the best place to find out. Does anybody happen to know? I understand it varies from engine to engine but I just need an idea.
Any help appreciated

Either it is meaning accelerative force acting on the car(since he asks how much a car produces) instead of thrust or it's something to do with the power output from the engine.

[stonemonkey]

Just had another thought, might still cause some debate though. It's the movement of the air or expanding gasses in the opposite direction to the direction of travel that gives the thrust to a plane, when an F1 car accelerates there'll be immeasurably small acceleration in the planet in the opposite direction but multiply that imeasurably small acceleration by the mass of the planet and you'll get the same value as multiplying the acceleration of the car with it's mass, would that be considered thrust?

EDIT: Kind of like having one of those tennis ball launchers that uses spinning wheels to fire the balls and using it in space, only on a completely different scale.

[Gaz]

We seem to be talking about slightly different things here, I'm meaning the force the tyre rubber can exert on the tarmac (without slipping) to drive the car forward and fight against air and rolling resistance. That force can be measured in newtons and is what I would consider to be the thrust of an F1 car.

No thats NM not N which is torque.

As I said before, we're talking about slightly different things here, I'm talking about the (potential) tractive force between the contact patch of the tyre rubber and the tarmac which is measured in N.

Ye fair enough but thats what it needs to produce to simply move at a given speed you can't really apply that to a jet because there is no rolling resistance, drag etc.. acting against it

The jet engine can just sit there and produce thrust and the only resistance against it is the air at the exit of the jet.

hence why i said a fair test would be to attach a propeller to an F1 engine to mesure the thrust expelled from the prop?

Why is it ok to compare a jet engine which works on the same principle as a rocket (expanding gasses)to produce it's thrust with a propeller pushing against the air (or water or you could even get screws that work on dirt or tarmac) but it's not ok to compare it with rubber pushing against tarmac?

you can't really apply that to a jet because there is no rolling resistance, drag etc.. acting against it

No drag on a plane, really?

what i meant was a plane is designed for lift and whereas an f1 car is designed to push down.

but there's no rolling resistance on a plane is there.

F1 cars don't produce thrust simple as that. so the best way to compare is to take a F1 cars engine and check the thrust generated when a propeller is used.

[stonemonkey]

but there's no rolling resistance on a plane is there.

On takeoff there is but I don't really see what a lack of that has to do with much here anyway other than when the drag resistance of an aircraft in flight is equal to the thrust from the engines it will remain at a constant speed, and when the sum of the drag and rolling resistance is equal to the force the tyres exert on the tarmac it will no longer accelerate.

Why do you not consider my planet or tennis ball examples to be examples of thrust?

[Gaz]

but there's no rolling resistance on a plane is there.

On takeoff there is but I don't really see what a lack of that has to do with much here anyway other than when the drag resistance of an aircraft in flight is equal to the thrust from the engines it will remain at a constant speed, and when the sum of the drag and rolling resistance is equal to the force the tyres exert on the tarmac it will no longer accelerate.

Why do you not consider my planet or tennis ball examples to be examples of thrust?

Because thrust is When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction the accelerated mass will cause a proportional but opposite force on that system.

There is no mass expelled or accelerated away from an F1 car.

[stonemonkey]

There is no mass expelled or accelerated away from an F1 car.

The ground is, but because the planet has quite a big mass compared to an F1 car it's not so noticable

[Gaz]

There is no mass expelled or accelerated away from an F1 car.

The ground is, but because the planet has quite a big mass compared to an F1 car it's not so noticable

The F1 car isn't expelling the mass its just pushing away from it.