F1technical.net

Maybe we would see a F1 car with a single exhaust.
Blasphemy!

Just to set things straight once and for all, Scandinavia was "christened" way back when in the 10th century, afterwhicvh we turned protetantst by force i
In the mid 15 century when we learned the pope himself was a fake..

Some more packaging ideas to consider (everything old is new again right?):

Transverse engine/Transverse transmission, as in motorcycles, some formula series and the old Miura (the goal with this would be to shorten the wheelbase and place the exhaust and turbo behind the engine, over the transmission):

Stohr LS5:


Radical SR3:


Miura:



Honda RA272 & RA271:




BMW motorcycle drivetrain:


Ducati V4 (narrow!):


Honda V4 w/ DCT:


Hayabusa I4 crank/trans:


Xtrac:




Transverse F1 trannies:


______________________________________________________________________________


How about one small turbo per cylinder? (Owen performance concept. I image these could exhaust into a fifth, larger, higher boost turbine. The main idea here is to reduce the distance from the exhaust port to the turbine) Penturbo!:



______________________________________________________________________________


Staggered inline cylinder arrangement. So, a VR4 interpretation (as in VW VR and W engines):





______________________________________________________________________________


A transverse engine could be paired with a through-the-valve-cover exhaust or intake, so the engine could have one longitudinal face mounted directly to the monocoque:



This can also be applied to unique turbo arrangements:




___________________________________________________________________________

That said, I'm imagining something like this (not to scale! ):



The intercooler location is not really defined. I would think there is much potential in terms configuration flexibility and temperature control if a heat pump and refrigerant is used. Any one feel like doing the math for this (I mean, would your workaday 5-10hp refrigerant compressor even begin to cool enough air)? The cold side of the heat exchanger (the intercooler) could be right next to the engine, eliminating long duct-work. That plus the turbo locations shown above would really cut down on the gas volume in the entire system. Here's an example (although this one uses refrigerated water that goes to an air-to-water intercooler):


Source: http://www.mr2beast.com/RAWIC.htm

The hot side of the heat exchanger could set with engine radiators, so we could maintain the current practice of using only two heat exchanger intakes. Bad example:

Formula None wrote: Transverse engine/Transverse transmission

Do you have any examples?



Just kidding , thanks for putting that together.

Yes thanks FN, nice pics, they bring back memories.
Looking at cut aways of engine gearbox units always make me cringe.
It is seeing all those gears and imagining them thrashing round in a bath of oil wasting so much energy.
Always reminds me of industrial washing machines.

Transverse might solve some mechanical issues, but wide and short isn't going to beat long and thin when it comes to aero to the rear wing

Formula none, It seems I was thinking the same thing as you. The little sketches I made has the gearbox longitudinal though. Its longitudinal just for the purpose of the diffuser.

Shaddock wrote:Transverse might solve some mechanical issues, but wide and short isn't going to beat long and thin when it comes to aero to the rear wing

Maybe a longer and narrower fuel tank could go well with the shorter engine/gearbox.

Shaddock wrote:Transverse might solve some mechanical issues, but wide and short isn't going to beat long and thin when it comes to aero to the rear wing

Actually, when you consider the exhaust of the current V8s, it would probably be as wide or narrower at the junction with the gearbox. Just taller.

2007 BMW V8:



2007 Renault engine:



And keep in mind that the header bundles are situated lower these days with the EBDs.



And if the transverse I-4 is too tall, lean it forward, like in the BMW motorcycle I4 image I posted above. Hell, lay it all the way forward (horizontal I-4) and you'll end up with something like this:

Having this as a stressed member engine will be tricky.
You should sketch a detailed pictured of it, with the intake manifolds, to get an idea of what structure is required to have a propper mating of the transverse engine with the tub.

WhiteBlue wrote:The one thing we have not seen is a 2010 F2 engine as fitted in the car and not on a test bench. That would be interesting.

here you go WB:
enjoy:





P.S.: nothing too fancy, close to the old Formula Palmer installation.
Keep in mind this is a road car engine, not a purpose built full stressed racing unit.

not sure how "true" these data are. It´s in no overboost mode.

some photos from the engine installation in a Formula Atlantic car.
It´s an I4 n/a. engine

just posted it to give a idea of the size and the heigth of the venturi tunnels in an full GE car around the engine, so that you can anticipate how much the engine could be tilted sideways.
I would be surprised if someone would choose more then 45°.
IMHO it will depend from the chassis regulation, and what the minimum cockpit width is going to be. I would expect that the chassis/cockpit has the same width as now.
So people perhaps choose to stay within the perimeter/footprint of a current V8, this is why I think 30-46° lean angle is likely. But I could be wrong off course.




note the FA does not use a top/roll hoop airbox inlet, even with an n/a engine

if someone was going to follow Ringo´s idea for a very narrow footprint and placing the turbo/axial turbine on top of the gearbox, he may end up with an exhaust close to this.



I think the loses in heat and pressure will be to great, making the turbo less efficient. But never say never.

747heavy wrote:here you go WB:
enjoy:

Thank you 747heavy. They are using a subframe indeed. What cannot be seen is the turbo installation on the left side of the car and how the tunnels are positioned relative to the engine, but I guess that can't be helped.

Shaddock wrote:

Blackout wrote:Something like this ?
http://i69.servimg.com/u/f69/14/79/55/26/tm_2_b10.jpg

Peronally, I'd leave the turbo top mounted rather than underslung. The I/C can go into one of the sidepods but keep they will need to keep the pipework as short as possible to reduce lag.

A simple schematic of the plumbing on my car, which shouldn’t differ to much in principle to an F1 turbo engine.
http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z41 ... cation.jpg
IRL it looks like this;



I'd expect the F1 engines to have equal length manifolds, and possibly twin scroll.

Waw very tight packaging... What VW/Audi engine is that? Is it possible to see such tight exhaust manifolds in 2013 ?

xpensive wrote:Being descendents of true vikings, we do not recognize neither Christ nor Mohammad, we obviously worship Tor and Oden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbnEgOxi ... re=related


WB: Exauhsts and tunnels in a GP2:

747heavy wrote:if someone was going to follow Ringo´s idea for a very narrow footprint and placing the turbo/axial turbine on top of the gearbox, he may end up with an exhaust close to this.



I think the loses in heat and pressure will be to great, making the turbo less efficient. But never say never.

A half ( ) Alfa V8 with the turbo placed behind.



Happy holidays.