Edax wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:44 pm
wuzak wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:30 am
graham.reeds wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:03 am
You are forgetting that an I3 would be too small to become a stressed member.
I remember Adrian Newey saying that the small V6 was right on the limit.
The V6 should be better as a stressed member than the longer V8s and V10s.
The bank angle chosen was specifically for this reason.
Newey was opposed to the in-line 4 originally proposed, as it lacked strength in some directions.
The other side of the coin is the extended wheelbases the current cars have. This leads to a longer gearbox connection to the engine, which means that it is heavier to get the strength required.
Surprised that Newey was against this. If I look at the old BMW I4 engines, the engine is so much smaller that it leaves sufficient room (and weight) to apply additional reinforcements. The Brabham had additional struts around the engine.
For a guy who is aero oriented, and has coined the size zero philosophy I would have guessed that he would have fallen for the slimmer profile and the freed up volume (engine and exhaust manifold.)
The limiting factor for width is the mandatory cockpit opening size and the cockpit protection.
The V6 fits within that width and height comfortably.
A L4 will be taller, unless it is canted to one side or the other, in order to lower CoG. Once it is canted, the width advantage disappears.
The V6's sump should fit in the step in the floor, while a canted L4's would not, so gaining a CoG advantage to the V6.