dont for get the large ventury tunnels , by doing that you reduce the width size of the tunnels , the V section would need to be around 60 degrees , minimizeing the indent into the tunnels

azarion - do you really think F1 engines don't have camshafts? All the pneumatic system does is replace the valve springs - nothing else, you still have two camshafts per head, four in total in a V8.

It's n u u m a t i c - 2 ewe's FFS

I suppose you Guys spell SAAB 'SARB'??

Tony did you ever do a drawing of the Pedantic F1 that had ventury's that were designed around, or I should say under, it's 60 degree V12?

I always have trouble with two ewes, one is my limit.

Are you saying the tunnels would go under the V4 and over the flat 4?

Glad to see it's open...

ewwwwww!

have a look under a lemans style car from the 90s , you will see the tunnels ( ground effects ) and if you can see the engine , you will see how compact it is to fit between the tunnels , the xjr jags from the late 80s early 90s are the best to see this , the whole idea for the FH8 engine is for aero and low CoG ,

Tunnels are not a mystery, we know about them and where they go, what they do. What is the FH8 engine? It was FV8...

I suggest that you take a look on how long forward the tunnels extend in those cars, basically the tunnels start in front of the engine and goes all the way to the rear of the car.

As you can see, the tunnels take up almost all the space on each side of the engine up to the exhaust pipes.




Then it's a bad idea for several other reasons. If you look at various championship winning race engines you will find that most of them are rather simple, you don't get bonus points for outsmarting yourself with complex engine designs that never work as planned.

If it's a lower CoG you want, optimise the conventional V8 engine instead. The much lower weight of this simple design will allow you to add more ballast to the car instead, which in turn lower the CoG.

No but the things called 'women' they're attached to are.

Speak for yourself!

My mrs is definitely a mystery to me

Thats sad Tony, you realise She's got you by the short and curlies letting you think you understand her

Damn! You could be right... Could be...

From what I remember, the crankshaft of a flat engine had always to be raised a little compered with the height of a V engine, this in order to provide enough room under the engine for the exhausts. That `undid` some of the advantages for a lower GC. So the advantage on that for your engine is gone here too
Unless yoy use an inlet or outlet canal directed between the camshafts like on the Indt DOHC Ford or, in case of a flat engine, the 3.5 Liter Gp C mercedes Flat12 of 1991.
But such makes your engine wider again, thus such engine would only suitable in a closed, full bodywork style car.


You also neet separate geartowers for the flat part as well as the V part...

I think it can be made to work but i wonder if the benefits would be large enough to compensat things like weight and complexity of th thing.


Henri

The 'wide-angle' Renault V10 wasn't actually as wide as 111-degrees, it was 106-degrees.
This was confirmed when they ditched the design.

The '111-degree' was a commercial ploy as this sounded more interesting....
But the '111-degrees' seems to have stuck, so the ploy worked well

Look at a present day Lemans car. No one is allowed to run tunnels, so it doesn't matter. Flat motors are limited because you have to raise the damn things 6" in the air to get the exhaust out. They end up looking pretty tidy once you do that, but the actual difference in CG isnt a huge deal. If it were, you'd see a lot of racing only engines (like Judd, etc) producing flat engines. They don't.

This whole FV8 thing has been a bit pointless in my view, but I suppose you could overcome the exhaust problem of the flat layout by having the induction between the cams and the exhaust on top. but once again, if it was worth doing it would have been done.

i see what you mean , it was juist an idea to solve the essiue of ventury tunnels to work well and have the engine low enough for balance , ive got other ideas that im going to put up , to see if they work ,

Please do - we are desperate for topics - got any really contentious ones?

Is braking power best represented as a torque or horsepower value?

Not that desperate!