|
Post by pabs on May 15, 2003 1:54:21 GMT -5
OK this is really dumb but....
Wide V-angle engines in F1 have the advantage that they lower the overall CG of the car right? My question is: instead of going the Renault way and opening the V to 111 degrees (I can't figure out for the life of me how they came up with that number), why don't they keep it nice and simple at say 90 or 72 degrees and simply install the engine upside-down? Surely it can be done. I guess the oil sump would be a problem, but that can be overcome in the same way that is being done in aviation engines right?
What am I missing here?
|
|
|
Post by rick1776 on May 15, 2003 2:39:03 GMT -5
Ahhh,
You want the V angle to be 222!!! Seriously though I think that you will find the CofG will be at a point lower then the mid point between the bottom of the motor and the top of the motor. Turning it upsidedown will therefore raise the CofG.
Although I seem to be batting at a pretty low average at the moment so Im probably wrong on this one as well.
cheers rick1776
|
|
|
Post by eso on May 15, 2003 5:02:36 GMT -5
Partly right Rick. When you consider the gearbox and suspension, if you were to turn the engin upside down the cylinder heads would be below the surface of the track. As rick said, the most weight in the engine is probably the crankshaft.
Also, the engine block has been a structural element of the car sine something like the Lotus 49. The lower the V angle the harder it is to engineer the car to be stiff enough without additional bracing which adds wieght right where you were trying to reduce it in the first place. Apparently, that is much of what Mike Gascoyne was facing when he first arrived at Renault.
eso
|
|
|
Post by worthless on May 15, 2003 7:21:00 GMT -5
Have any teams considered (or experimented with) a 'boxer' type engine? Horizontally opposed cylinders? Or anything similar?
I would think that type of engine would have a low CofG.
Common sense tells me that if it would be successful, someone would be doing it right now, but I'm curious as to what are the pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by pabs on May 15, 2003 10:17:47 GMT -5
I knew I was missing something: main weight contribution comes from the crankshaft Worthless, didn't the Ferrari 312 TX use opposing cylinders? I guess the main problem is that the engine woud be too wide so the back would not be as tapered as it is now.
|
|
|
Post by eso on May 15, 2003 12:07:51 GMT -5
With the modern designs that utilize the engine as a structural member of the car, a boxer type motor would require a bulkhead over the motor to provide enough longitudinal stiffness for proper opperation.
If you look at a V type engine it has a trianglular cross-section. Triangles are one a nature's strongest most stable shapes, which is why we see them in so many structural applications. Now attach that triangular prism shape to the survival pod part of the chassis and you have the lightest, strongest and most rigid central structure to hang the suspension from.
When Mike Gascoyne first came to Renault, he inherited a car that had been previously designed and suffering from a lack of stiffness which would translate to a lack of stability and be nearly impossible to setup, as flexing would continually alter all of the suspension relationships. And that was with the 111 degree motor, not a flat opposed type. His first season there was primarily devoted to re-engineering the engine-chassis mounting to rectify this problem.
As in any form of engineering, the best solution is really what amounts to the best compromise between all of the variables. In this case, while a flat motor might offer a lower center of gravity by itself, in application it would also require addtional structural elements which could counter the gains of the motor configuration and add complexity.
"Things should be as simple as posslible, but no simpler": Albert Einstein
eso
|
|
|
Post by CFF on May 15, 2003 13:58:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eso on May 15, 2003 14:04:41 GMT -5
CFF, thanks for that link. That gives me fuel for several fires.
eso
|
|
|
Post by pabs on May 15, 2003 15:16:43 GMT -5
Good stuff CFF. In fact, I just got out from a discussion with my advisor in which he reminded me EXACTLY of the same... Turns out...I was making things simpler
|
|
|
Post by worthless on May 15, 2003 17:58:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the info, eso. I'll put it to good use. I've often wondered why I haven't seen a boxer engine in more racing applications (with the exception of the Subaru WRX and some Porsches). Pabs, I don't know if the 312TX had one or not. Good question, though. Me thinks I needs to do some research...... ....still looking..... ....here's one for you Pabs. The 312 did have a 12 cylinder, 2992cc boxer. Well done. Gotta love Google.
|
|
|
Post by rick1776 on May 15, 2003 19:27:53 GMT -5
It would appear that Occam subscribed to the KISS principle, which is what I live by. Keep It Simple Stupid.
LOL
cheers rick1776
|
|
|
Post by pabs on May 15, 2003 21:18:21 GMT -5
What's really funny to me is that what was initially a theological argument found its way into science....gotta love the irony in that.
Maybe God is watching...
|
|
|
Post by pabs on May 15, 2003 23:26:40 GMT -5
Thinking about my dumb question a bit, and playing devil's advocate a little...
Couldn't we rotate the engine about the crankshaft and then mount it upside down? This would surely result in a lower CG. To avoid having the cylinder heads below the surface of the track, we could decrease the length (stroke I guess is the technical term?) but increase the bore?
This is of course ignoring the structural issues already addressed by eso and the suspension and gearbox problem. I must admit that I am dummy when it comes to that. Been doing fluids waaaay too long.
BTW, Rick I've replied to your post about the diffuser in F1-live.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on May 16, 2003 7:38:16 GMT -5
Pabs,
F1 engines are as oversquare as you can make them already.
|
|
|
Post by Cine_Man on May 16, 2003 13:06:13 GMT -5
pabs. Do some more fluids.... gotta get to 47 today. Cine_...
|
|