What will come after the 2.4 V8?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.

Post Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:22 pm

V4 or V6 is another issue to look into aside from direct injection.
The V6 has to be 120 degrees for good balance, the 4 has to be 180.

Shouldn't a flat 4 be a better prospect than a V layout?
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:00 pm

Flat is not good for any race car. It is bad for packaging. They make nice aero engines if you cool the cylinders by air. For a rear engined race car the cylinders stick out where you want to have your radiators and the engine does not achieve an almost square cross section which you would want for rigidity of a stressed engine arrangement. So from a aerodynamical and packaging point even I-4 is better and V4 or a false W4 would be best. Look at the way Ferrari have arranged their turbo V6 with the turbos in the V valley. Very effective. Just imagine two cylinders lopped of from that or having them even shorter by a W config. Revs are likely to be below 12,000 anyway and if necessary you can add a balancing shaft.

Christian Sylt piece on MBHPE Ltd last annual report

Sylt is clearly providing assistance to Bernie who wants to split the FiA and FOTA. The FiA have said that they aim to finalize 2013 technical regulations this year. The criticism by Ecclestone and Sylt is unrealistic. The last we need is another body mingling in the rule making. It is best left to FiA and FOTA.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:56 am

The boxer has a much lower COG. That's one plus side. The radiators wont be in the way since they'll be beside the fuel tank.
I don't like the idea but it can be worked on. There are also some aerodynamic advantages as it relates to the top of the car.
The boxer is not much wider than a V6 with turbos sticking out the sides. Only in the case of mid mounted turbos is the package narrower than the boxer package.
Image
take this for example, the red arc is where the heads would be for a boxer setup.
Still within the foot print of the turbo v.

V4 in my mind is not necessary, too many problems associated with balance.

Reintroduction of the 120 degree V6 is a better prospect. A 6 cylinder has better valve flow for the same displacement as well.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:08 am

The exhaust manifolds would be too low they would stick out under the car and be really bent up.
"I was blessed with the ability to understand how cars move," he explains. "You know how in 'The Matrix,' he can see the matrix? When I'm driving, I see the lines."
n smikle
 
Joined: 12 Jun 2008

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:18 am

Yes but i was thinking about mid bank exhausts. Even though it will be cramped for the intake pipes.

Oh Aprillia has their V4 engine.
Image
13,500 rpm in WSB trim.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:23 am

The last flat Ferrari engine was the Tipo 015 which ran until 1980. Since then Ferrari have only build V-engines for F1. Obviously the packaging advantages supersede the CoG disadvantages. Initially their turbo V6 had 120° V angle. Their latest models had 90° V angle and 81x48.4 mm cylinders. The bore to stroke ratio was 1.674.

If I would have to guess the bore x stroke would be 94.8 x 56.65 and the V angle 90° again for a 1.6 L engine.

The question of downsizing and lower cylinder counts has been discussed before. V6 is most probably not going to be competitive in terms of the target fuel efficiencies.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:57 am

Don't forget the 1990 Subaru flat-12, not that it xactly set the world on fire. But no, with today's quest for a slim bodywork at the rear, a flat something would not be very practical.

However, I cannot see a V-4 either, when this would have effectively zero road-car relevance for the manufacturers.

How about a mildly boosted, to 0.5 Bar, and rev-limited to 12k, 2.4 V8? This should make for about the same power as today but give an engine that would last for a season, while maintaining the multi-cylinder image?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:06 am

I don't think a mildly optimized V8 would be competitive with V4s. Too much friction. Too heavy. Too big.

The only other engine they could probably bring would be a 30-45° lay down I-4. The engine casing would probably have an artificial outer frame on the other diagonal to get the same rigidity but that space could also house the tubo and the exhaust pipes. I just feel that I-4 will be avoided for marketing purposes. The V4 they can sell as a high tech engine.

xpensive wrote:However, I cannot see a V-4 either, when this would have effectively zero road-car relevance for the manufacturers.

Don't forget the Rally Lancia 1.6L V4 with rear wheel drive. It was an extremely compact and light car. It could be a new trend if it is associated with the F1 engine in road cars. To compensate for extreme F1 life the engines could be a little bit bigger.

Turbo charged 2.0L V4 road cars with 500 bhp and very light and compact engines would not be so bad.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:23 am

ringo wrote:V4 or V6 is another issue to look into aside from direct injection.
The V6 has to be 120 degrees for good balance, the 4 has to be 180.

Shouldn't a flat 4 be a better prospect than a V layout?


MotoGP has V4s in Honda, Ducati & Suzuki. They use 360° crankshafts which give 90° 270° 90° 270° firing intervals referred to as 'Big Bang' as against 'Screamer' with 180° cranks also with uneven 180° firing gaps. The 'Big Bang' is really 2 long bangs and 2 longer pauses. It makes a more rideable bike as the rider has better physical feedback of the roadholding during the pauses between bangs - at least that is the current belief.

The Yamaha I4 has a 90° crank giving the same firing sequence as the V4s.

An interesting article on the balance of twin cylinder engines = half of a I4 and applicable to the Yamaha engine: http://www.xs650.org.au/smoothness.htm
Last edited by tok-tokkie on Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
tok-tokkie
 
Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Location: Cape Town

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:35 pm

Three cylinder six piston opposed piston flat two stroke supercharged turbo generated petrol engine with variable port timing and compression ratio.
Works for me!
autogyro
 
Joined: 4 Oct 2009

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:11 pm

tok-tokkie wrote:
ringo wrote:V4 or V6 is another issue to look into aside from direct injection.
The V6 has to be 120 degrees for good balance, the 4 has to be 180.

Shouldn't a flat 4 be a better prospect than a V layout?


MotoGP has V4s in Honda, Ducati & Suzuki. They use 360° crankshafts which give 90° 270° 90° 270° firing intervals referred to as 'Big Bang' as against 'Screamer' with 180° cranks with even 180° firing gaps. The 'Big Bang' is really 2 long bangs and 2 longer pauses. It makes a more rideable bike as the rider has better physical feedback of the roadholding during the pauses between bangs - at least that is the current belief.

The Yamaha I4 has a 90° crank giving the same firing sequence as the V4s.

An interesting article on the balance of twin cylinder engines = half of a I4 and applicable to the Yamaha engine: http://www.xs650.org.au/smoothness.htm


Interesting article.
Last edited by ringo on Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:19 pm

xpensive wrote:Don't forget the 1990 Subaru flat-12, not that it xactly set the world on fire. But no, with today's quest for a slim bodywork at the rear, a flat something would not be very practical.

However, I cannot see a V-4 either, when this would have effectively zero road-car relevance for the manufacturers.

How about a mildly boosted, to 0.5 Bar, and rev-limited to 12k, 2.4 V8? This should make for about the same power as today but give an engine that would last for a season, while maintaining the multi-cylinder image?


A flat 4 wont have this problem remeber it's just 2 cylinders long.
It will be very wide only up to a certain distance. beyond that there will be plenty of room to trim the waist of the car; also a lot of room above the engine for turbos, symmetrical KERS, and what have you.
For Sure!!
ringo
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:31 pm

A flat four then, why not? Perhaps you can lure Subaru back then, even a retro-VW?

But seriously, I think a 1.5 flat four would still be wider than today's monocoques, while the inlet and xhaust be a nightmare, remember the goulish Mercedes 3.5 flat-12 Group C engine?

Picture of that beast anyone?
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:21 pm

Image
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/Mer ... engine.jpg
Image
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/engineC292b.jpg
Image
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/C291b.jpg

>>>>
Mercedes also designed a flat 180-degree 12-cylinder engine, the M291, for use in their C291 Group C car. This engine gave Michael Schumacher and Karl Wendlinger victory at Autopolis in the Sportscar World Championship season finale. Earlier this engine was plagued by oil-scavenging problems but they were solved and the engine was ultimately reliable enough to win but still hefty at 170kg.
<<<<
Last edited by 747heavy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver."
- Colin Chapman

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy
 
Joined: 6 Jul 2010

Post Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:34 pm

some other rather scurril F1 engines

Subaru/Motori Moderni 1235 flat-12:
Image

Moteurs Guy Negré W12
Image
Image

Life F35 W12
Image

Neotech V12
Image
Image

Isuzu V12
Image
Last edited by 747heavy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver."
- Colin Chapman

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
747heavy
 
Joined: 6 Jul 2010

PreviousNext

Return to Engine, transmission and controls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], monsi and 8 guests