Question about the cylinder angle.

riff_raff · Post 27 Apr 2005, 09:32

bcsolutions,

The problem with a "w" engine configuration is that it has 3 cylinder heads, by nature. The packaging of the intake and exhaust plumbing would be problematic, at best.

There is no limit for wheelbase on F1 cars, so engine length is not a major concern for chassis designers. All F1 engines must have 10 cylinders per current rules. And of course, a "W10" would be shorter and more torsionally rigid than a "V10", but the question begs, "How do you divide 10 cylinders into 3 cylinder banks?".

Of course, all of this discussion is academic. For 2006, all F1 engines must be 2.4 litre 90 degree V8's. Cosworth already has their's on the dyno, and it's revving to over 20,000 rpm. So much for the FIA's cost cutting rule changes!

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14635.html

Regards,
Terry

Reca · Post 30 Apr 2005, 14:35

bcsolutions wrote: So lets say that the engine designer drugged the aerodynamicist and managed to get his engine built. I can see how the total engine size (not length) would be an issue but what benefits do you think the engine might have over a regular V configurated engine?

For some reasons I’m not sure I appreciate the drug approach... although I know a few structural engineers who would very happily adopt it... anyway, compared with a V10 with similar characteristics (bore/stroke etc), the W12 has the advantages of more cylinders (hence more power, less friction etc) still being shorter. In term of vibrations, although it’s worse than a V12 isn’t as bad as a V10 or a V8.
Compared with a V12 the only upside is probably the length with the usual downsides of intake/exhaust positioning and width.
As I’ve already said the main upside of the W12, at least to me, is that it’s a “crazy” approach, I like it for that.

riff_raff · Post 26 Jun 2005, 09:26

Reca wrote:.
As I’ve already said the main upside of the W12, at least to me, is that it’s a “crazy” approach, I like it for that.

Remember the BRM H-16? You must have loved that engine configuration!

[/img]

DaveKillens · Post 27 Jun 2005, 17:28

Heck, In World Superbike, Honda went down a weird road with a V-5.
So if you constructed a W-10? You could arrainge the cylinders as three on each side bank, and four in the middle bank? or four on the sides, with 2 in the middle.. the combinations are making me dizzy . lol
Personally, I always have a sweet spot in my heart for the Porsche 917 flat 12.

manchild · Post 27 Jun 2005, 23:00

There was W engine constructed for F1 and fitted to a car in the ‘80s by some French tuner/engine builder whose name I can’t remember. I’m not sure but I think that it was either W 9 or W12. The project failed but I remember seeing photo of the car and engine including first experiments that guy did with W engine on Renault 8.

RH1300S · Post 28 Jun 2005, 14:57

I don't believe the engine actually ever got to a race! AFIK, it failed to qualify on every attempt and often didn't complete the installation lap.

It was the Life W12 engine.

Anyone heard an H16 running? Amazing sound..............

RH1300S · Post 28 Jun 2005, 15:23

manchild wrote:The project failed but I remember seeing photo of the car and engine including first experiments that guy did with W engine on Renault 8.

R8!!! That's 'king nuts.............The R8 has the same basic mechanicals as the Alpine A110 (other way 'round really

) - shall we say the A110 is insanely happy to throttle steer with 120bhp

GuestAgain · Post 28 Jun 2005, 16:58

Reca wrote:
For some reasons I’m not sure I appreciate the drug approach... although I know a few structural engineers who would very happily adopt it... anyway, compared with a V10 with similar characteristics (bore/stroke etc), the W12 has the advantages of more cylinders (hence more power, less friction etc) still being shorter. In term of vibrations, although it’s worse than a V12 isn’t as bad as a V10 or a V8.

Why would a W12 have less friction than a V10 with similar characteristics? Doesnt it have more moving parts (for instance multiple c-shafts and more cylinders)?

Mcdenife

manchild · Post 28 Jun 2005, 18:51

RH1300S wrote:I don't believe the engine actually ever got to a race! AFIK, it failed to qualify on every attempt and often didn't complete the installation lap.

It was the Life W12 engine.

Anyone heard an H16 running? Amazing sound..............

I also think it never got to a race that is why I wrote that project failed

Are you sure the engine name was Life? I have something in my head telling me that engine name was something beginning with "D" or "B"... The last name of this guy... It was a long time ago I can't remember

manchild · Post 28 Jun 2005, 19:00

RH1300S wrote:
manchild wrote:The project failed but I remember seeing photo of the car and engine including first experiments that guy did with W engine on Renault 8.
R8!!! That's 'king nuts.............The R8 has the same basic mechanicals as the Alpine A110 (other way 'round really ) - shall we say the A110 is insanely happy to throttle steer with 120bhp

You've probably misunderstood me - that guy made W engine and fitted it in R8.

West · Post 28 Jun 2005, 19:59

Life made a car w/ a W12 engine in hopes of attracting sponsors w/ an unusual engine configuration, should it work, and we all know what happend to Life after that.

The last name of the owner of the team was Vida, I believe; hence the team name.

manchild · Post 29 Jun 2005, 00:17

Found it!

This constructor I was mentioning was Guy Negré. Moteurs Guy Negré built engines by this design. The MGN W12 was bench-tested in 1988 and also tested in the back of an old AGS JH22 in 1989. This was as close as this engine ever came to Formula One. It was later briefly used in a Norma M6 sportscar. Life also had W engine but it wasn’t the one built by Moteurs Guy Negré and it was presented later (historically).

manchild · Post 29 Jun 2005, 00:44

RH1300S wrote:Anyone heard an H16 running? Amazing sound..............

If your thinking on this sound http://gpl.krej.cz/mp3.html that wasn't the came engine as the one in riff_raff's post. BRM H16 was normally aspirated while BRM V16 was supercharged 1.5L.

http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/brmcars.htm

DaveKillens · Post 30 Jun 2005, 04:40

After looking at the wonderful pictures of the MGN W12, I started to wonder about the crankshaft, and it's configuration. It's a nice, tidy package (probably one of the prime reasons for it's construction), so it's difficult imagining anything but a crankshaft with just four throws, three rods on each throw. Designing such a short crankshaft with twelve individual throws seems unrealistic. I haven't done the hard math, but it appears primary vibrations would be controlled. But secondary vibrations may be an issue. As well, each rod end on the crankshaft may have to be designed with less than optimal width.
But it sure is a cool way to package twelve cylinders in such a short package.

RH1300S · Post 30 Jun 2005, 14:54

manchild wrote:
RH1300S wrote:Anyone heard an H16 running? Amazing sound..............
If your thinking on this sound http://gpl.krej.cz/mp3.html that wasn't the came engine as the one in riff_raff's post. BRM H16 was normally aspirated while BRM V16 was supercharged 1.5L.

http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/brmcars.htm

I'll confess, I WAS thinking of the V16 when I posted. Even so, the H16 still sounds amazing

Great pics, thanks - I was unaware of this particular W12 engine

Question about the cylinder angle.

V vs. W engine config