Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
mzso
0
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by mzso » Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:14 pm

saviour stivala wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:30 am
I do not recon there ever was a flat-12 engine used in F1 or sports car racing made in ‘boxer’ configuration.
A flat engine which is not a ‘boxer’ configuration is regarded as a 180 degree vee engine.
The problem of a flat-12 used in F1 was always its wide and exhaust ground clearance.
V-engines with exhaust out from in-between the 2 cylinder banks were made and races.
V-engines with inlets in-between the 2-cams of each cylinder bank were made and raced.
The only ‘boxer’ configuration engine I know off that raced in F1 was the 1955 Porsche 547 1.5-litre Flat-4.
Flat-12 racing engine for use in F1 and sports racing cars:- Porsche 360 Cicitalia of 1949. FERRARI 512. Alfa Romeo F1-117/33tt12/33sc12. Porsche 917. Motori Moderni 1235F1. Tecno F1-Flat-12. Mercedes-Benz M291. Non of these flat-12’s were boxers.
There were also the 312/B/T-s as was pointed out.
I wonder why they didn't went with boxers, what reason is there against it?Edit: Ah your other comment explains it.
till.a.fischer wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:41 am
I can only speak for Ferrari-engines:
Flat 12s were used in following F1-cars:
1964-65 Ferrari 1512 (sometimes referred to as 512), 1,5 litre
1970-74 Ferrari 312 B, B2, B3
1975-80 Ferrari 312 T, T2, T3, T4, T5

While 312 T4 won the Championship in 1979 its successor T5 failed miserably.
Two reasons made Ferrari abandon the flat12 concept:
There was no room under the car for a diffuser / ground effect.
Turbo-Technology was on its rise and dominated the 1980s.
Thanks for the info.

AngusF1
5
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:54 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by AngusF1 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:03 am

Another way to think about it is, a V engine fits perfectly behind the cross section already occupied by the chassis. A flat engine sticks out the sides and gets in the way of the air management.

saviour stivala
20
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by saviour stivala » Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:06 am

mzso wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:14 pm
saviour stivala wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:30 am
I do not recon there ever was a flat-12 engine used in F1 or sports car racing made in ‘boxer’ configuration.
A flat engine which is not a ‘boxer’ configuration is regarded as a 180 degree vee engine.
The problem of a flat-12 used in F1 was always its wide and exhaust ground clearance.
V-engines with exhaust out from in-between the 2 cylinder banks were made and races.
V-engines with inlets in-between the 2-cams of each cylinder bank were made and raced.
The only ‘boxer’ configuration engine I know off that raced in F1 was the 1955 Porsche 547 1.5-litre Flat-4.
Flat-12 racing engine for use in F1 and sports racing cars:- Porsche 360 Cicitalia of 1949. FERRARI 512. Alfa Romeo F1-117/33tt12/33sc12. Porsche 917. Motori Moderni 1235F1. Tecno F1-Flat-12. Mercedes-Benz M291. Non of these flat-12’s were boxers.
There were also the 312/B/T-s as was pointed out.
I wonder why they didn't went with boxers, what reason is there against it?Edit: Ah your other comment explains it.
till.a.fischer wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:41 am
I can only speak for Ferrari-engines:
Flat 12s were used in following F1-cars:
1964-65 Ferrari 1512 (sometimes referred to as 512), 1,5 litre
1970-74 Ferrari 312 B, B2, B3
1975-80 Ferrari 312 T, T2, T3, T4, T5

While 312 T4 won the Championship in 1979 its successor T5 failed miserably.
Two reasons made Ferrari abandon the flat12 concept:
There was no room under the car for a diffuser / ground effect.
Turbo-Technology was on its rise and dominated the 1980s.
Thanks for the info.
If you haven’t as yet seen it, you might be interested to see a fully functional 1:3 scale 312PB made in a home workshop over a period of 12 years and finished in 1998. Visit “MPS-SPORTPROTO.COM”. do not miss clicking on engine photo.

coaster
-8
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:10 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by coaster » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:19 am

There is an old discussion on the 110 motor on this site, i think it follows their philosphy of the early 67.5 degree RS03 motor.
The true bank angle was never shared, some say 110, 111 and 112.
My opinion is that its follow on from RS03 and the angle being 112.5 which is inverse to 67.5.
Anyhow, it was not stiff enough as a chassis part and trusses had to be added, vibration was an issue also, with the looming mileage increase they went back to the proven 72 degrees.
I'm sure i will get slayed for this post.

Edit; Opel built a wierd v6 in the early 90's with a 150? degree angle, worth a look at.
Yours truly,
Wolsy Esquire.

bill shoe
219
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by bill shoe » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:30 pm

The GM/Opel V6 was 54 deg. This was to package it better in tight FWD layouts. However, the engine had DOHC so rather wide/tall heads. A conventional 60-deg (or even 90-deg) V6 with pushrods would have probably been more compact. The 54-deg V6 was available in the U.S. in the Opel-based Cadillac Catera and Saturn L-series. I figure that says it all.

I speculate that Renault's racing people were looking for a technical gimmick (wide v-angle with low CG) so they could claim to have identified a competitive advantage in presentations to the Renault executives who would need to pay for the Renault F1 team revival. This gimmick basically succeeded and the Renault team was reborn from Benneton. The wide-angle engine never worked well, but in the meantime they actually built up quite a good F1 team. When they finally ditched the gimmick engine and went to a conventional angle, the championships quickly followed.

coaster
-8
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:10 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by coaster » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:47 am

Billshoe it may have been a V4, im not absolutely certain, i remember an issue of "hot vw's" magazine from the late 90's, it had a long travel suspension vw beetle baja with a an obscure quad cam motor with a very wide bank angle.

Maybe V4, maybe opel / vauxhall.
(Concise huh?)
Yours truly,
Wolsy Esquire.

saviour stivala
20
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by saviour stivala » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:44 am

The late nineties found all of the F1 V10’S with 72 degree bank angle. Ilmor had used a 75 degree bank angle before returning to 72 degree bank angle. But there were people thinking along the lines of bank angles wider than 72 degree to gain centre of gravity height advantage. Cosworth produced a 120 degree bank angle V10 which was never raced because the Jaguar chassis designers were not happy or keen upon the 120 degree V10. On the other hand Renault produced a 106 degree bank angle V10 which was raced, Renault demonstrated the merits of a wide angle, the exact bank angle of its RS21/22/23 engine (this was a three year project) has never been officially confirmed, but it was in fact 106 degree.

Dr. Acula
18
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by Dr. Acula » Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:27 pm

saviour stivala wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:44 am
The late nineties found all of the F1 V10’S with 72 degree bank angle. Ilmor had used a 75 degree bank angle before returning to 72 degree bank angle. But there were people thinking along the lines of bank angles wider than 72 degree to gain centre of gravity height advantage. Cosworth produced a 120 degree bank angle V10 which was never raced because the Jaguar chassis designers were not happy or keen upon the 120 degree V10. On the other hand Renault produced a 106 degree bank angle V10 which was raced, Renault demonstrated the merits of a wide angle, the exact bank angle of its RS21/22/23 engine (this was a three year project) has never been officially confirmed, but it was in fact 106 degree.
Ferrari also used a design with a 75° bank angle in 96 and 97 and then got one step further for 98 and 99 with a 80°bank angle design. So not everyone used a 72°design in the late 90's

saviour stivala
20
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by saviour stivala » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:58 pm

‘V10 formula 1 engine technology. By Ian Bamsey’ :-engine bank angle. The mainstay of the post war 3.0l formula was the Cosworth DFV, which had the traditional 90 degree bank angle, the initial 3.5l V8 engine from Cosworth and Judd had a 90 degree bank angle but the Judd EV of 1989 had instead a 75 degree bank angle, to improve chassis packaging and aerodynamics in particular. This was considered more significant than the slight increase in centre of gravity height implicit in narrower angle. The Cosworth HB which replaced the company’s first DFV derived 3.5l V’S likewise had a 75 degree bank angle, as did the Yamaha OX88 V8 of 1989. The Renault RS01 V10 of 1989 had a 67 degree bank angle, while the contemporary FERRARI V12 had a 65 degree angle, again, this was at the behest of the chassis designer. It was mostly to do with formula 1 car aerodynamics at the time. by contrast the naturally aspirated 3.5l Mercedes sports car engine of 1991 was a V12 with a 180 degree bank angle. In this application centre of gravity height was considered of paramount importance. The sportscar aerodynamics regulations imposed a single, wide shallow rear diffuser rather than allowing for tunnels to flank the engine. The relatively low level of rigidity implicit in a wide, low line engine structure was countered by the normal sportscar practice of running the engine only semi-stressed in the chassis. However, this Mercedes engine (which was somewhat overweight at 170kg) had a twin plug head, that was a drawback of the complex porting needed to keep it’s exhausts tucked up above the level of the underfloor. In the heyday of the classic 180 degree V12 FERRARI formula 1 /sportscar engine there had been no serious attention given to underbody airflow, in those days having exhaust pipes that protruded deeper than the sump was not a crucial consideration. (PART ONE, PART TWO TO FOLLOW).

saviour stivala
20
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by saviour stivala » Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:42 pm

'Ian Bamsey' (PART TWO) :- The benefit of a narrow bank angle formula 1 engine became less as the 3.5l/3.0l era drew on , in the wake of continuing changes to the formula 1 chassis regulations. nevertheless, the late nineties found all the V10'S with a 72 degree bank angle(logical as one fifth of 360 degrees). Ilmor had used 75 degrees but had reverted to 72 degrees. that was purely for car packaging reasons, not to regain even fire. uneven fire is not a problem with the contemporary engine management system. why than was there not to be found the use of bank angle wider than 72 degrees in the late nineties, to gain centre of gravity height?. There were in fact people thinking along those lines. in due course Cosworth produced a 120 degree V10 which was never raced, Renault a 106 degree V10, which was. there are those who argue that a wide angle as 120 degree cause problems of ancillary location and exhaust layout. engine stiffness might also suffer, while the engine might well encroach upon the exit route for the air passing through the radiators. it is understood that the Jaguar chassis designers were none too keen upon the 120 degree V10, which is why it did not race. so it was left to Renault to demonstrate the merits of a wide angle. the exact bank angle of the RS21/22/23 engine(this was a three year project) has never been officially confirmed but it was in fact 106 degree, not as wide as to cause packaging issues but wide enough to offer a centre of gravity height advantage over rivals V10 engines. this helped the Benetton/Renault car to excel in terms of mechanical grip. although the 106 degree Renault engine was always down on power compared to its rivals, the car was fast at slow speed Monaco and Hungary. it won at Hungary in 2003. (Ian Bamsey PART THREE TO NFOLLOW).

Dr. Acula
18
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by Dr. Acula » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:45 pm

From the official Scuderia Ferrari Website about the F310 (1996 F1 car)
https://formula1.ferrari.com/en/f310/
This was the first time the Maranello marque had fielded a single-seater powered by a 10-cylinder engine. The model designation reflects this novelty, with 3 standing for the displacement of 3 litres, and 10 indicates the number of cylinders which were arranged in a 75° vee.
From the official Scuderia Ferrari Website about the F300 (1998 F1 car)
https://formula1.ferrari.com/en/f300/
Rory Bryne designed an all-new car as the technical regulations for 1998 called for 20 cm narrower front and rear tracks and the use of grooved tyres instead of slicks. What made this car special was its novel aerodynamic design approach which, in the years to come, would ensure Ferrari’s superiority over its rivals. The engine was new too – the Tipo 047 characterised by an 80°angle between the cylinder banks and numerous internal and external modifications.
So the statement that all V10 engines used in F1 in the late nineties had a bank angle of 72° is simply wrong.

saviour stivala
20
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by saviour stivala » Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:44 pm

Ian Bamsey PART THREE:- There were however a number of negative issues associated with the Renault bank angle, in particular intake and vibration ones, which is why it lacked power. It is worth noting that this engine had the clutch located in the gearbox rather than on the end of the crankshaft. In 2003 then technical director – chassis Mike Gascoyne told the author that the 106 degree V10 had started life weighing less than 90kg but that it had gained weight in fixing problems. With this engine the air had a longer route from the central air intake (above the driver’s head) to the cylinders and there were resonance problems in the wide plenum. Renault engineer Denis Chevrier told the author ‘that was something we could have tackled better, if we had an engine reliable enough to test’. The vibration issue contributed to the lack of reliability and led to the introduction of an unusual timing drive, whereby each bank was driven from a different end of the crankshaft. Chevrier added ‘that helped reliability, if the rules hadn’t changed for 2004, using that system I think we could have gone on and matched the best’. Instead Renault reverted to a 72 degree bank angle V10 for 2004. At this stage technical director- chassis Bob Bell told the author ‘it is a fairly straightforward performance loss – the higher centre of gravity does reduce the grip level available for cornering. The small penalty we took on that, we accepted as a compromise that overall gave us an advantage’. In fact in 2004 72 degrees was itself radical as by now all rival engines were 90 degree V10’S. It was (lack of time) expediency that had caused Renault to revisit 72 degrees. FERRARI had pioneered the 90 degrees bank angle in 2000, followed the following year by BMW and thence by the others. This bank angle provided a useful reduction of centre of gravity height with no serious side effects. BMW’s Doctor Mario Thiessen told the author that his team had studied all angles from 72 to 100-plus degrees before settling on a 90 degrees. ‘We say 90 as the optimum, looking at chassis performance on the one side and engine performance - gas exchange and vibration issues - on the other side.

coaster
-8
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:10 am

Re: Why weren't flat engines experimented with more in F1? Why did Renault try a wacky 111° angle V instead?

Post by coaster » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:21 pm

I heard ferrari chose a 65 degree V12 simply because the pallet changers on their horizontal machining centres could only index to that angle, in the early 90's that is.
Now they would have an infinite choice.

Edit; we could debate all day the renault but that motor was and still is a very secretive design.
Yours truly,
Wolsy Esquire.