Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
aussiegman
aussiegman
105
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:16 am
Location: Sydney, Hong Kong & BVI

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

wuzak wrote:That's all well and good, but the aincluded angle between the valves of modern 4v heads is less than 30 years ago, so it is unlikely that the space could be found for the intakes.

Ferrari already did that, with the 1967 312 F1 car.
Agreed that it may prove problematic.

I wasn't sure if Ferrari had done actually done it. I could only remember the the Lancia Triplex example.

However, in reference to the Ferrari 312 F1, I was under the impression the engine in this was only a "reverse cross-flow head" (for want of a better way of putting it) and not the same concept as the Tri-plex head design which feed the intake from the centre around the spark plugs.

The pictures below seems to show it as a typical cross flow head design, however simply reversed to the normal intake inside the V designs and not a top/centre feed as in the Tri-plex type setup.
Image
Image

Nevertheless, IF they wanted to make it work, they could.

The facts are Lancia has previously used the type of setup, as well as possibly Ferrari from your comments (I do not know), shows that even with 30+ year old techniques, metallurgy and engineering it could be made to work.

So IF the need was great enough, IF the benefits large enough, they could again using more modern machining, metallurgy and modelling technologies to manage packaging and performance difficulties.

However as said, its all just hypothetical and I was simply offering a solution to a problem posed by you previously.
wuzak wrote:Also, the cylinder banks of the flat 6 will have to be raised to give room to the exhaust between the engine and the flat floor. On the V6s the bottom of the crankcase can sit in the step and there is still room for the exhausts.
If you think the solution doesn't work, no problem, maybe as an exercise in problem solving offer up something else?? :)
Never approach a Bull from the front, a Horse from the back, or an Idiot from any direction

User avatar
matt21
86
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:17 pm

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

Also Ferrari had a good installation back in the 80ies.

Image

wuzak
wuzak
381
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

This pic shows, to my mind, the intakes going in between the cam covers.

Image

I'm not sure what advanatges the Lancia setup gives.

aussiegman wrote:
wuzak wrote:Also, the cylinder banks of the flat 6 will have to be raised to give room to the exhaust between the engine and the flat floor. On the V6s the bottom of the crankcase can sit in the step and there is still room for the exhausts.
If you think the solution doesn't work, no problem, maybe as an exercise in problem solving offer up something else?? :)
I would suggest a wide angle vee (no more than 120°) with the exhausts inside the vee feeding the turbo. Have a twin scroll (not sure of the correct term) compressor with two outlets - each feeding one bank via a small liquid-air intercooler.

If the rules allowed it I would consider two turbos, but with the MGUH system in place that may be extra weight for not a lot of benefit over the single turbo route.

wuzak
wuzak
381
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

Ford also did the intake between the cams for the Lotus Indy car in 1967.

Here is a cross section:
Image

An advertisement:
Image

And an Indy Ford V8 with turbo
Image

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
594
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

the 'vertical' inlet port was on the BMW 328 in the 30s (and Honda F1 in 1964 ?)

the Lancia Triplex is different, alternated inlet and exhaust valves are the driving feature
(like the 4 valve Repco F1 and BMW/Apfelbeck F2 in the late 60s)
this is gives difficulties in induction and exhaust layout

I am glad that we're not all in love with flat engines
they're only good at being flat
they all come from Porsche and his employees following Ledwinka's Tatra (a 1920s flat twin)
flat twins are ok, but to what problem was/is the flat 4, 6, 8 etc the solution ??
the whole VW/ Porsche thing was a triumph of detail design and construction over a mistaken/obsolete layout

a flat 6 with 3 crank throws would be very bad (that's why there never was such)
having bad vibration, and a bad crankshaft (uneven inertial and firing intervals)
and is unsuitable for a single turbo
6 throws are needed, demanding a longer (and thicker) crankshaft, ie more bearing friction, adding engine weight and bulk
this downside is particularly bad with the small (80 mm) bore limit

the 90 deg V6 is a good compromise
its firing intervals need only an exhaust length differential for the single turbo
100, 110 deg would be better (and 120 deg is best), for everything except vibration and package
(144 deg suggests an even interval '5 cylinder' concept ie do the rules require a piston etc in all 6 cylinders ?)

Batman9435
Batman9435
0
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:10 am

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

Post

Is this thread still active?
I discovered this triflux design a while ago and looked up the patent...really interesting. There is even an idea of a v6/b6 triple/quadruple turbo setup
Image
Image
Image
With the i4 setup, you could theoretically "deactivate" one compressor, to quickly bring turbo1 up to speed and if needed slowly introduce turbo2 (turbo2 has a closed throttlebody while charging to prevent reverse spinning).
An additional benefit would be the "crossed" intake valves. The incoming air then creates a sort of turbine effect to mix the mixture much better than a traditional procedure and reduce emissions.

saviour stivala
saviour stivala
45
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:08 am
matt21 wrote: If any configuration would be allowed, I would go for a 144°-V, as it provides the best CoG when considering the needed room for exhaust and intake systems.
a V 5 then ?
And in pushrod configuration/cam inside block. plenty of imaginations on here lately.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

Post

Batman9435 wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:29 am
Is this thread still active?
I discovered this triflux design a while ago and looked up the patent...really interesting. There is even an idea of a v6/b6 triple/quadruple turbo setup
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-2.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-3.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-4.png
With the i4 setup, you could theoretically "deactivate" one compressor, to quickly bring turbo1 up to speed and if needed slowly introduce turbo2 (turbo2 has a closed throttlebody while charging to prevent reverse spinning).
An additional benefit would be the "crossed" intake valves. The incoming air then creates a sort of turbine effect to mix the mixture much better than a traditional procedure and reduce emissions.
Yeah, that valve set up seems a bit similar to the WW2 Soviet Klimov developments which
were made to the old Hispano-Suiza V12 mill, albeit, they went a bit further, see below:

Image
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

Maritimer
Maritimer
19
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:45 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

Post

Batman9435 wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:29 am
Is this thread still active?
I discovered this triflux design a while ago and looked up the patent...really interesting. There is even an idea of a v6/b6 triple/quadruple turbo setup
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-2.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-3.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-4.png
With the i4 setup, you could theoretically "deactivate" one compressor, to quickly bring turbo1 up to speed and if needed slowly introduce turbo2 (turbo2 has a closed throttlebody while charging to prevent reverse spinning).
An additional benefit would be the "crossed" intake valves. The incoming air then creates a sort of turbine effect to mix the mixture much better than a traditional procedure and reduce emissions.
Koenigsegg can do this now with their Freevalve tech, exactly what you describe is in the TFG engine.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

Post

Maritimer wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:12 am
Batman9435 wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:29 am
Is this thread still active?
I discovered this triflux design a while ago and looked up the patent...really interesting. There is even an idea of a v6/b6 triple/quadruple turbo setup
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-2.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-3.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-4.png
With the i4 setup, you could theoretically "deactivate" one compressor, to quickly bring turbo1 up to speed and if needed slowly introduce turbo2 (turbo2 has a closed throttlebody while charging to prevent reverse spinning).
An additional benefit would be the "crossed" intake valves. The incoming air then creates a sort of turbine effect to mix the mixture much better than a traditional procedure and reduce emissions.
Koenigsegg can do this now with their Freevalve tech, exactly what you describe is in the TFG engine.
That's an interestingly topical claim, can you kindly post a vid of it actually doing so?
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

Maritimer
Maritimer
19
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:45 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:36 am
Maritimer wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:12 am
Batman9435 wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:29 am
Is this thread still active?
I discovered this triflux design a while ago and looked up the patent...really interesting. There is even an idea of a v6/b6 triple/quadruple turbo setup
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-2.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-3.png
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... page-4.png
With the i4 setup, you could theoretically "deactivate" one compressor, to quickly bring turbo1 up to speed and if needed slowly introduce turbo2 (turbo2 has a closed throttlebody while charging to prevent reverse spinning).
An additional benefit would be the "crossed" intake valves. The incoming air then creates a sort of turbine effect to mix the mixture much better than a traditional procedure and reduce emissions.
Koenigsegg can do this now with their Freevalve tech, exactly what you describe is in the TFG engine.
That's an interestingly topical claim, can you kindly post a vid of it actually doing so?

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 engine

Post

Maritimer wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:09 pm
J.A.W. wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 9:36 am
Maritimer wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:12 am

Koenigsegg can do this now with their Freevalve tech, exactly what you describe is in the TFG engine.
That's an interestingly topical claim, can you kindly post a vid of it actually doing so?
Ta for that, Maritimer, do you know of an independent road/dyno/track test, yet?
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

User avatar
JordanMugen
68
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

matt21 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:09 pm
Why a V5? I would stay with a V6.
With no restriction on configuration, would they run an inline-four, inline-three or even twin-cylinder? It should reduce friction losses, right? :)

Jolle
Jolle
132
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:23 am
matt21 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:09 pm
Why a V5? I would stay with a V6.
With no restriction on configuration, would they run an inline-four, inline-three or even twin-cylinder? It should reduce friction losses, right? :)
Good chance indeed they would run at least a inline 4 or a V4.

Boxer engines in road cars have a lower COG then V or inline engines because there is enough space to do all the piping under the heads because of the sump and road engines have less extreme intake channels.
If you go for a dry sump, the engine needs to be raised from the main plane to have exhausts (or you have to do some weird porting like mentioned above) and the intakes will be in a far less desirable place.
Ever since we understand the importance of as straight as possible intake tubes and the narrow coke bottle shape of the car, a V with the intakes in the center is the only logical conclusion, with added bonus that the V shape is perfect to use the engine as a structural member.

So yes, chances are they considered it, but only very very briefly... around 5 minutes.

If they would switch to twins on the other hand... then there are possibilities (

User avatar
Big Tea
97
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Will manufacturers be interested in allowing a flat 6 en

Post

Jolle wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:54 am
JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:23 am
matt21 wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:09 pm
Why a V5? I would stay with a V6.
With no restriction on configuration, would they run an inline-four, inline-three or even twin-cylinder? It should reduce friction losses, right? :)
Good chance indeed they would run at least a inline 4 or a V4.

Boxer engines in road cars have a lower COG then V or inline engines because there is enough space to do all the piping under the heads because of the sump and road engines have less extreme intake channels.
If you go for a dry sump, the engine needs to be raised from the main plane to have exhausts (or you have to do some weird porting like mentioned above) and the intakes will be in a far less desirable place.
Ever since we understand the importance of as straight as possible intake tubes and the narrow coke bottle shape of the car, a V with the intakes in the center is the only logical conclusion, with added bonus that the V shape is perfect to use the engine as a structural member.

So yes, chances are they considered it, but only very very briefly... around 5 minutes.

If they would switch to twins on the other hand... then there are possibilities (
What would be the odds on considering a transverse engine? Maybe a 3 cyl?
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.