>1.6L V6 >1000hp Mercedes does it again everybody,

Literally no torque

>>17302599
Except the ICE only makes 748hp, and that's not impressive when you don't have to adhere to F1's 4,0 bar (~60PSI) boost limit.

>>17302610
>four electric motors
>no torque

>>17302642
name another road car that makes 460hp/L

>>17302610
More than a 5L Mustang GT and over a much larger rev range.

>>17302648
>4 electric motors
>lol guys look this 1.6 litre car makes 1000 horsepower

So it takes BMW 5 engines to do what bogans do in their backyards with an ls1 and two turbos?

>>17302663
[citation needed]

It probably makes something like 400 ftlbs.

>>17302659
Name another road car that has 30K mile engine refurbishment intervals.

>>17302610
>look mum I'm shitposting on the 4chins

File: tumblr_inline_oafb1fmmfh1tryy7m_540.png (194KB, 470x352px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 470x352px

>>17302686

>>17302610
>600+ Nm is "literally no torque" on /o/

File: 1478914338917.jpg (37KB, 467x479px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 467x479px

>>17302709

>>17302720
[citation needed]

Mercedes hasn't even released torque ratings on any of the motors yet, neither ICE nor electric.

How the shit do they get this through emissions? Limited production?

>>17302610
It literally uses the same engine Mercedes uses in their F1 car, and those things have a fuckton of torque

>>17302741
They're probably doing a collab with VW on that.

>>17302748
F1 engines do not have ''a fuckton of torque''. They rev to well over 15K, since the displacement limit make that the only option to make power.

Citation fucking needed, for the third time this thread.

>>17302599
Are they legitimately putting this in a production car of some kind or are they going to try and "sell" a street-legal F1 car?

>>17302730
takes 1 minute to google it, I could link you a french article from 2014 about 1.6L V6 in general though.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (508KB, 1214x888px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1214x888px

>>17302741
they use the EV mode to fudge the numbers

>>17302754
>They rev to well over 15K
no they rev to exactly 15k

>>17302709
I laughed harder than I ought to have.

>>17302762
I can't find anything on torque ratings of F1 cars though. Link please?

>>17302767
15K? God damn pansies lowered it again. Certainly explains the lack of wail they have nowadays.

>>17302720
>engine is only a marvel of engineering when paired with electric motors
>so it's not a marvel of engineering at all
>has literally no torque without the cucklectrics

>>17302686
We know it makes 1020hp and we know the maximum RPM is 11,000. It's not hard to work out how much torque it would need to be making to make that power at that RPM the answer is 486.8 ft.lb all ready more than a 2014 coyote powered GT's peak torque value, and that's assuming the worst case for producing the quoted power on the project one.

>>17302792
>460hp/L
3.4 times better than the Dodge Demon

>>17302797
>the answer is 486.8 ft.lb
You're assuming the best case here. First of all, the V6 only makes 748hp, not 1020. Second, no performance engine ever develops torque linearly. Third, no performance engine develops peak power at it's redline.
Best guess for a modern F1 engine is 400 to 500Nm, or just under 400ftlbs - significantly less than a new Coyote. You can bet your rear end that they'll have to detune Project One to even get close to their guesstimated 30K mile engine refurbishment.

>>17302760
well, it's a limited production street-legal F1 car

>>17302816
even if your guesstimated torque figures were right, it means not much desu. These engines are working almost always near the top end of the power curve / rev range with close ratio gear ratios. In other words, you are still working with almost peek power, you don't care about low/mid rpm torque at all so really, those figures don't matter at all. Torque near the top of the powerband can be calculated, again, that is telling just something, not the whole story (and not taking electric motors into account at all).

Then the big part comes in, gear ratios. Because those engines rev insanely high, their overall gearing to the wheels is stepping revs down a lot thus multiplying torque in the very opposite ratio (that is why torque figures do
not matter here). Power matters.

File: Gerhard_Berger_1986_Detroit.jpg (121KB, 1600x899px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1600x899px

>1.5L 4-cylinder
>1400hp in qualifying trim, 900hp during races

BMW did it in 1986

>>17302847
Also note that the BMW I4 made twice the power of Merc V6 power. (1400+ vs 748).

>>17302847
this
mercekeks btfo

why does displacement trigger so many people?

>>17302848
>comparing a 1 lap race car to a road car
Also it never made 1400hp that's a myth.

>>17303118
it's not a myth.
And even if it "only" made 900hp it's still more hp/cylinder than the Benz engine

>>17302610
>implying torque even matters

do you know what gears are for or are you american?

>>17302847
....and it managed that on a production block.

>>17303384
they actually only built them on blocks that had done 100,000km already, because they believed that if the block was going to crack, it would have done so already.

Legend also holds that they treated the blocks like absolute shit. Pissed on them, left them outside in the rain and shit. Wild stuff.

>>17302720
Considering 'Nm' does not express a unit of torque, your statement is correct generally.

>>17302610
When did formula cars have torque?

>>17303410
Yes it does you fucking idiot. It's one newton of force being applied to a rotational axis via a one-meter lever.

>>17303388
>because they believed that if the block was going to crack, it would have done so already.
Not just that, but 100,000km worth of heat expansion, high loads, cold starts and all of those heat/cool cycles gets the metallurgy almost perfect.

File: average american.jpg (56KB, 399x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 399x400px

>>17303410
>americans
Fuck off

>>17303410
Fucking retarded americunt

Torque is Force x Distance, doesn't matter the units

>>17303421
>>17303461
No it doesn't. In forming a product of unit symbols, multiplication must be indicated appropriately. There is no such indication in 'Nm'.

>>17303434
I think you replied to the wrong post. You should probably have directed your reply to the one who does not exhibit a sound understanding of the SI.

>>17302816
>You're assuming the best case here.

You don't understand the relationship between power and RPM. At lower RPM the power unit will be making more torque to make the 1020hp. Hence the statement that was the worst case.

>>17303534
Except it doesn't make 1020hp, but 748. Calculate that, and remember that an F1 head is designed to deliver peak torque between anywhere12000 and 15000 RPM, and you end up with less than 400 ftlbs.

>>17303502
Seriously fucking kill yourself. You got served and you're backpedaling by pointing out common syntax errors like a picky little cunt. You're an embarrassment.

>>17303547
>served
No one has satisfactorily explained how 'Nm' could legitimately considered to symbolise a unit of torque.

>backpedalling
You must be associating posts made by others with me. Allow me to be perfectly clear: 'Nm' does not express a unit of torque. Please re-read the SI Brochure.

>>17303655
>having a tantrum because someone doesnt type out the space between N m

Kek dude

>>17303676
>Not using the also acceptable half-high dot
Get some taste dude

>>17303681
Only pseudo-intellectual smartasses use that

>>17303410
>>17303502

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_metre

>>17303712
You've made a mistake. I'm already aware of the appropriate unit symbols for the Newton metre. You should have addressed this reply to those who I replied to who are not so informed.

>>17303815

Cringe

>>17303815
you said

>'Nm' does not express a unit of torque

>>17303815
The fact you're still alive using up valuable oxygen triggers me more than anything you could say.

None of you will ever own, or drive this car.

None of you are at high levels in Mercedes, or the racing community.

Why are you even arguing about shit that has zero relevancy to your life?

>>17303892
?

Because we aren't 100% dead inside like u dear

>>17303925

When I argue with autistic faggots on the internet, I argue about things that I can actually buy and use on a regular basis.

Seems to me like living vicariously through a world which you will never be a part of is closer to being "dead inside", m80.

>>17302680
>bmw

wew lad

>>17303410
take static mechanics and kill yourself faggot

>>17303695
kys nigger the multiplication sign is only acceptable prior to algebra and when using cross products

AHAHAHAHAH BIMMERCUNTS OWND

File: hqdefault.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>Mercedes has more money than anyone
>They have the best engineers
>AMG
>Old as fuck so muh heritage
>They are willing to makes cars like the SLS and the RETAREDED 6x6
>The 6x6 is so insane it gets 2 points. How the fuck did this get approved?
Mercedes is awesome. Cadillac wont even make the Sixteen or Emliraj. BMWs top of the line car is a fucking i8 piece of trash. They had a period of shit in 2001-2008ish where their cars weren't so great but they are back at the top and give ZERO fucks about anyone else.

File: 1492313515919.gif (2MB, 467x246px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 467x246px

>>17304156
i shill BMW days to end. But yeah, i have to agree the 6x6 is total madman/10

>patiently waiting/hoping for V12 M8

I dont understand why this guy is sperging about engine rebuilds every 30k
when you buy something that belongs on a track and is SUPPOSED to be maintained by an expert team of engineers youre gonna have to do that shit
its a given

>>17303831
That's right, and the Wikipedia article says nothing which contradicts that assertion.

>>17304091
Re-read the SI Brochure and find that your life improves generally, my friend.

File: nio1+2.jpg (320KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1800x1200px

>0l
>1342hp

youll aint shit

>>17304156
>2001-2008
>DaimlerChrysler
HHMMMMMMM REALLY MAKES YA THINK

>>17303384
....for one or two laps, before they just swapped the entire engine out.