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
-6
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
17
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
-7
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
216
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.