In terms of technology, how does Top Fuel compare to F1 and WRC?

They make up to 1000 hp/L with normal gas you can basicly get at the pump...
Also the aerodynamic setup is a insanely complex system on F1 cars...

>engines can't even last 1/2 a mile before needing a rebuild
Top fuel is boring.

>aero isnt technology
Go design an F1 car and eyeball the aero, then we'll talk.

>The clutch setting's alone are pretty complex, then you got engine timing and track conditions to take into consideration too.
>implying that isn´t normal at F1

Are you really impying F1 doesn't tune cars per track?
Hell, F1 teams have cars JUST for the Monoco GP because the turns are tighter than anywhere else they race.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to throw KERS on top of all of that btw? Trans and clutches in F1 are years ahead of TF.

"Fucking zipperhead japs better fucking stop with this 4 cylinder shit, real engines contain 8 cylinders"
- Colin Chapman, circa 1980

>Revs=technological advancement?

You realize that you can't do that with an engine built out of just any old metal. The materials need to be strong and light. Don't be such a dipshit.

Colin Chapman, a man, with no brains.

>11000hp out of 8L for a few seconds
BMW actualy made engines in the 80s that lasted entire races and had up to 1400 hp out of a 1,5l I4

>5,2 bar boost
>Apfelbeck head
>revs to the moon and back
>production block
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH BMW???

It was rare for one of those engines to make it into the car. Most blew up in the test cell during the fuel mapping.

most of the time they didn't last the entire race

They did actualy use that particular setting for F1 qualifiying, but the wear was indeed insane.
The inventor of said engine joked about 1mm piston lash after the race...

>only 3.6 seconds
>almost 330mph
>over 4g during the entire run

> if top fuel dragsters lasted 100 races without a rebuild, they'd be more exciting

No you fucking retard

The difference in technology is about as big as the difference in skill between "stoplight racing in your moms automatic neon" and "racing your mr2 on a tight, twisty track to compete for lowest time"

you all are retarded, stick to routine maintenance on your shitboxes

for one, all of these racing series have very strict rules, they aren't exactly pushing the limits of *new* tech, they simply push the limits of the tech they are allowed to use

and again there's not some mysterious black box super secret undercover technology, everyone knows what these race teams are doing and other racing series could just as easily use that same tech

>having actual down's syndrome in 2017

he thinks theyd be better if they were like drift cars that never need any matinance

>having actual down's syndrome in 2017
>down's

Found the downie.

Thats why no one was able to compete with mercedes right

Top fuel isn't relevant they still use a hemi engine which are shit for compression without a supercharger.

Mercedes had the power unit made and designed before 2014.

You're more than welcome to build a naturally aspirated 11 000hp DOHC V6 if it's so easy. I'd really love to see that.

>They have to fill the block to stop it exploding >11 gallons of nitro per second
>Spark plugs turn into glow plugs after 1-2 seconds
>Launches are roughly 8G's
>200MPH in less than 2 seconds

>Average speeds of up to 160MPH
>50+ laps of up to 6G per corner
>5G's under braking
>Drivers lose around 9lbs of fluid during a race

F1 wins technology hands down, there is no arguing this. Never seen a nitro spend millions in a wind tunnel before.
As far as raw, zero fucks performance, I mean the block is filled with fucking concrete.

They're two different worlds. Personally, I'd love to see (Monetary requirements aside) the two worlds swap for a season and see what comes out new. Fuck the FIA for that season, though. Just absolutely balls out.

>being this retarded
Only in America.

Instead of asking Veeky Forumstismo, read an article with great information

epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/comparison_of_cup_to_f1.htm

Only sensible post in this thread, jesus christ.

Not op but very cool article

Both Top Fuel and F1 are extremely impressive in terms of technology, WRC isn't really close. Group B kinda was.
As to who's most impressive, I'd say Top Fuel, but I'm biased. They seem to do so much more with so much more archaic rules. F1 doesn't push their ruleset as far, but I'd really is the more modern (and engaging) sport. Drag racing doesn't put you at the edge of your seat for five minutes like F1 can, because the rounds don't last five seconds.

Remember when F1 still allowed unlimited engines per season? They'd design engines explicitly for qualifying: minimal weight, maximum boost, and a lifespan of three laps (or less). Race engines were designed to run 100% of the race, and not a meter more.

In the famous words of Dr. Porsche: if your racecar doesn't fall apart two meters after the finish line, you added too much mass.

F1 engines have to last several races, because cost-cutting regulations tell them to. If it were up to the engineers, then they would last as long.

Top Fuel doesn't have to corner by design, that's just optimisation at work. Remember, they still make amazing amounts of downforce with A. That massive wing B. The sheer force of their exhaust pushing downwards.

In terms of piston speed, Top Fuel is much more impressive. Anybody can rev that high with a stroke that short. They don't even go to 15K RPM because of fuel regulations.
KERS would be useless in a drag racer.
F1 had a ruleset that is 50 years ahead of Top Fuel. The engineering behind both is cutting edge.

>dude it's just a giant wing

Lol no. Those 1400hp dynobreakers were just for qualifying. Race trim was 800-900hp. Oh, and the qualifying engines had a very similar service life to a Top Fuel dragster, in that they need a rebuild after every run.

>Joked
German engineers don't make jokes.

This, Top Fuel wouldn't be fun or impressive if they weren't rapidly accelerating explosion generators.

You can easily make a modern Hemisphere with 12:1 CR with flat top pistons. The reason TF uses such a low CR is because they are literally making 60 PSI without an intercooler.

F1 cars have actual aero and can steer. WRC is about how much power you can put to all 4 wheels. Top fuel is kind of a joke because F1 uses pump gas octane levels to get 1000hp+ and NHRA needs oxygen within the fuel to get power out of their 426 chrysler.

>top fuel is a joke because they only make about 10-11,000 hp

>Implying the block is filled with concrete
Why would you do that on a billet block? You just don't machine the cooling components.

I want to but the reason they don't use DOHC is because they know what happens when a pushrod engine explodes and they have kevlar blankets over the entire engine so no one will get injured if one goes off. They also engineer weak points into the engine so if one does explode it's not going to do much.

Not impressed for an engine from 1964.

In terms of technology there's no fucking contest, F1 wins over any category. Which is why it's called Formula 1.

Ferrari, merc, and red bull spend literal billions on the cars.

that's a myth
they only had that for 1 lap qualifying and 1400hp is an exaggeration

I know mercedes is spending money on development no one will know about also Ferrari.

he's not entirely wrong
back in the day budget racers used to fill their blocks with stuff but yeah these modern engines are designed specifically for the top fuel/funny car teams

12:1 may be impressive for a hemi engine.

Therefore, AutoX isn't racing.

>Implying a 426 Hemisphere has anything to do with a modern Top Fuel unit
Maybe if you squint from 1000ft.

People still do that, but not in Top Fuel.

It's a 426 chrysler elephant engine to 500ci

-Colin Chapman

It has literally nothing interchangable with the 2nd gen 426 Hemisphere though.

It's still and enlarged 426 hemi from 1964. It's billet aluminum instead of cast steel but it's still pretty much the same engine. They do this because of safety.

Did you mean WRC or WEC? I think you made WEC

>It is named after John Langdon Down, the British doctor who fully described the syndrome in 1866.

>How does pushrod V8's compare to a turbo-hybrid 1.5l ?

f1 has more TEKNOLOGY because the rules allow it.

>hur dur rebuild after one pass
Yeah, because they're allowed to. all you dumn faggots don't get that racing is about following the rules as closely as possible

Also they get fist fucked if they put oil down on the track.

Depends. In combustion chamber, piston design, etc top fuel and nascar were the major innovators.

F1 in everything else.

They were but F1 has done everything since the 1980s like straight runner intakes and combustion chamber design.

Under rated shit post.

As a fan of both series.

F1 wins no doubt on the technological front. They have the equivalent of DARPA aerodynamicists, camless engines, iris valves operated with hydraulic pressure. On the fly fuel tuning, and radio signals sending information to a pitcrew one million times per second.

In terms of raw power, nothing on earth comes close to a top fuel/funny car this side of an Atlas V rocket.

Stop reminding people how shit the US space program has become.

>high tech euro engines that make 1000hp per liter that last several races with no rebuild
>push cuck shit that is nowhere near as sophisticated and uses old boomer technology and can only go in a straight line and still blows after every race
Lol ameriburgers and their shitty engines

He's named after the part of your body that processes shit so it should be obvious that he's full of it

back when they were allowed unlimited engines per season they would each barely last a race

its simply related to rules

Even modern F1 engines will blow up in the first lap. Getting that much power from that little displacement will never be reliable regardless of the amount of technology.

youtube.com/watch?v=CGIUvIJqHEE

Cherry picking they are insanely reliable for the displacement they only get 5 power units for the year but they go one or 2 over.

sperg more pushcucks

I mean, literal technology wise, you're looking at a 50+ year old engine architecture. In terms of how the cars are built? Dude, the shit is next level. The way that Top Fuel cars are put together is absolutely insane. Literally pushing the absolute limitations of what a pushrod, cam in block engine is capable of. They are so unbelievably cutting edge it's not even funny.

It's comparing apples to carrots, though. The difference is that the Top Fuel engines are built specifically for a certain, controlled environment. F1 is constantly changing and relies heavily on aspects outside of the powertain.

The engines in Top Fuel are basically the same as they were in the 70s.

NASCAR was also the major innovator in valve spring tech.

Oh and the Indy 500 was the major innovator in aero too.

>first wing on an open wheel racer

but he's right though

Top Fuel dragsters have to deal with tremendous forces, a little error in calculations can cause the entire block to split in half and blow sky high

>In the famous words of Dr. Porsche: if your racecar doesn't fall apart two meters after the finish line, you added too much mass.
Meanwhile modern Porsches are stupidly over engineered and can last a long ass time even as dedicated race cars and still weigh less than the competition

>I know absolutely nothing about engine: the post

FCA owners this delusional stay sperged pushrod cuck all of them are the same.

I drive a Porsche and a Mercedes but okay

By that logic the 5.7 ls is entirely different than a 454 ls. They are the same engine just an enlarged version of it.

>what is material engineering
>what is fluid dynamics engineering
>what is aeordynamics engineering
>what is electronics engineering
>what is chemical engineering

F1 literally combines almost every branch of mechanical engineering into one field. Drag racing just uses the same shit that they always had to do the same thing they always will. There's literally nothing special about drag racing. Big engine + big tires = fast time. There's no technological advancement or anything worth noting coming out of drag racing.

So if it's the same since the 60s why don't you go and show us how it's done? Just a souped up junkyard V8 right?

>Why don't you go and spend a few thousand on something that's shit and uninteresting?

>in terms of sentience, how does this apple compare to oranges and pumpkins?

If it's only a few thousand dollars why not do it to prove a point?

>if they were like drift cars that never need any matinance

what did he mean by this?

Fucking a pig is easy and only of interest to those in the south of the USA, it's not something I'm going to do to prove a point.

So you can't do it

Dumb yuropoor

>Remember when F1 still allowed unlimited engines per season? They'd design engines explicitly for qualifying: minimal weight, maximum boost, and a lifespan of three laps (or less). Race engines were designed to run 100% of the race, and not a meter more.
1980s F1 was great. 1200hp or even more from 1.5 liters during qualifying in 1986. These qualifying engines could run boost pressures in excess of 5 bar and lasted only a few laps.

I can, and I can do it easily, I won't do it just to please a retard septic though. If you want my engineering time and expertise you are going to have to pay for it. I don't work for free.

Imagine being this underage

>Engineering time and expertise
Sure man, totally.

never try and work as a salesman, user. you're terrible at it.

Don Schumacher is a nigger who doesn't pay his employees had to get that in.

Parts between the 5.7 and 454 are interchangable.

There is literally nothing interchangable between the completely modernised, all aluminium billet block 500ci Top Fuel Hemis, and old 426 2nd gen ones. Every single component is different, oiling is different, cooling is nonexistent, valvetrain is only conceptually the same, head design is lightyears ahead, even the bore spacing is different, and iirc, Mopar has stuck with 1 bore spacing for all three generations of Hemi. That means that the Top Fuel units are clearly distinct.

>How does 10000hp compare to 800?
Top Fuel makes the most out of it's ruleset.

>camless engines
Confirmed for not knowing shit.

>implying Top Fuel doesn't make 1000hp/l
>implying 850hp/1.5L = 1000hp
Shiggy.

>>what is material engineering
Heavily used in Top Fuel because the engines need it, and you need to tune your chassis as a giant spring.
>>what is fluid dynamics engineering
Put to better use in Top Fuel, since they have superior flowing heads.
>>what is aeordynamics engineering
Heavily used in Top Fuel, since they generate more downforce than those F1 cars.
>>what is electronics engineering
Every. Single. Component. Is computer controlled. Not just in F1.
>>what is chemical engineering
Guess which fuel is the most chemically potent? Guess which tire compound is the stickiest? Guess which tires don't need replacement during races?

>Top Fuel combines literally every branch of mechanical engineering into one field. F1 just uses the same shit they always have, they always will, except maybe some slightly different engine formule. There's literally nothing special about F1 racing. Good aero + big tires = fast time. There's no technological advancement or anything worth noting coming out of F1 racing, even their hybrid drivetrains are outdated already.
This is how stupid you sound. t. mechanical engineer

There is not a single person on this entire board retarded enough to truly belive some redneck straight line throttle mashing comes anywhere close to F1 in terms of technology or skill requirement