Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Stolen from the Nostalgis forum but ..


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 07 December 2013 - 17:10

We have had many "odd" new engine layouts here but this one appears to have a real quality pedigree

 

http://forums.autosp...ngine-concepts/ see post 11

 

I guess teh idea was more piston area and higher revs through smaller pistons etc whilst not duplicating the heads twice.


Edited by mariner, 07 December 2013 - 17:18.


Advertisement

#2 PJGD

PJGD
  • Member

  • 72 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 08 December 2013 - 02:09

I should have provided more information on that posting:  The image comes from the US patent below [US5477818A1] in which Ennio Ascari and Paolo Martinelli are the credited inventors.  

 

Ferrari_OPE_US5477818_Page-1.png

 

PJGD



#3 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,717 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:53

I think someone posted a link to a photo here years ago of that engine or something similar taken at the Ferrari museum in Maranello. 



#4 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,717 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 08 December 2013 - 05:04

This is what I was thinking of: acl.jpg

 

http://forums.autosp...ferrari-engine/



#5 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:36

I am dribbling and muttering incoherantly :smoking:



#6 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 08 December 2013 - 11:49

It gives rise to question " if the cyinders share a common space is that two cylinders or on?e"

 

Why might that be important - well if the 2014 F1 regs say cylinders not pistons could some " smartass" designer claim its a V-6 under the 2014 regs and get a lot more piston area to boost power?

 

Probably not but it's a thought



#7 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 December 2013 - 13:01

If the piston crowns are conical with just line contact between the pairs at TDC, there's going to be a lot of space between them. Designing a flat plane on each that still goes down the bore might be tricky... Interesting tricky!



#8 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,522 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 08 December 2013 - 21:26

Interesting...but I prefer two other words myself :-)

Napier and Deltic!

NapierDelticURL.jpg

Edited by 275 GTB-4, 08 December 2013 - 21:27.


#9 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 December 2013 - 06:51

If the piston crowns are conical with just line contact between the pairs at TDC, there's going to be a lot of space between them. Designing a flat plane on each that still goes down the bore might be tricky... Interesting tricky!

To generate a sufficiently high CR and reasonable manufacturability, the pistons would be cylindrical with two flats on the crown. The bores remain cylindrical all the way to the cylinder head. The RHS chamber in the drawing seems to confirm this with what appear to be valve cutouts extending down the bore.



#10 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 December 2013 - 06:53

Interesting...but I prefer two other words myself :-)

Napier and Deltic!

NapierDelticURL.jpg

Of course the F1 version would have its apex upwards to lower the CG.



#11 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,522 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 December 2013 - 08:46

But of course...now that would be a sight to see :up:



#12 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,359 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:05

But of course...now that would be a sight to see :up:

 

Yes, I remember that -- the FIA's 87-liter two-stroke diesel formula. They should have stuck with it, was starting to get interesting. 



#13 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,717 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 09 December 2013 - 15:25

What type, layout, and displacement engine would be adopted for an F1 with no engine limits?  I'm guessing it'd be a lot smaller, lighter, more conventional and less powerful than most people would maybe expect. 



#14 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,359 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 09 December 2013 - 16:14

What type, layout, and displacement engine would be adopted for an F1 with no engine limits?  I'm guessing it'd be a lot smaller, lighter, more conventional and less powerful than most people would maybe expect. 

 

I'm sure you're right. There's no point in building more power into the package than you can put on the ground. 



#15 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 09 December 2013 - 18:08

We have talked about this before. But if we say all the other rules is as today my guess would be a 4 cyl turbo around 2L perhaps some more. 1000hp+



#16 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,667 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 09 December 2013 - 22:25

What would one call that Ferrari a Diamond twelve?

 

Too bad Ferrari did not have 454 in. cu. version of that for the Can-Am.

 

Could have made life miserable for Porsche, maybe.


Edited by Bob Riebe, 09 December 2013 - 22:28.


#17 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,389 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 09 December 2013 - 22:45

This is what I was thinking of: acl.jpg
 
http://forums.autosp...ferrari-engine/

And so easy to package too. Might be ok in a Sports Car.

#18 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 December 2013 - 18:05

To generate a sufficiently high CR and reasonable manufacturability, the pistons would be cylindrical with two flats on the crown. The bores remain cylindrical all the way to the cylinder head. The RHS chamber in the drawing seems to confirm this with what appear to be valve cutouts extending down the bore.

Oops, silly me! Yes, wedge-shaped, I don't know why I thought conical!



#19 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,522 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:21

Yes, wedge-shaped, I don't know why I thought conical!


So what about side thrust on the down stroke leading to premature bore wear? (keep it clean boys...please!)

Advertisement

#20 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 11 December 2013 - 08:56

Architectually it's really neat layout BUT

 

-The old twin crank bugbear of synchronisation would be even harder here because you need very close tolerances on the piston(s) to head clerance and any inter crank harmonics  are going to change those clearances dynamically.

 

- If I read the drawing right there are two gasket seals for each hot combustion zone - the usual block to head one and , it seems , a second one as two V-6 crankcases are bolted togehter to form the diamond shape. How you crush up first one gasket then crush up one at 90 degrees to it without everythng shifting may be bit tricky.

 

In a NA version as shown the big gain in piston area wil be partially offset by lower valve area to total bore area which could limit breathing.

 

Maybe better if it were a turbo unit with a single diamond block casting - less fire joints and CR lower so clearances less critical plus valve area maybe not a power limiter.



#21 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:54

What would one call that Ferrari a Diamond twelve?
 
Too bad Ferrari did not have 454 in. cu. version of that for the Can-Am.
 
Could have made life miserable for Porsche, maybe.

Ferrari did have a 7 litre V12 Can-Am engine - probably could have been made to be 454ci easily enough - also probably would have been more practical than the "diamond" engine.

#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 December 2013 - 01:14

So what about side thrust on the down stroke leading to premature bore wear? (keep it clean boys...please!)

Can't see a problem. This thing is just one 90* V6 fipped and sitting atop another - sharing cylinder heads.



#23 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 December 2013 - 01:21

Architectually it's really neat layout BUT

 

-The old twin crank bugbear of synchronisation would be even harder here because you need very close tolerances on the piston(s) to head clerance and any inter crank harmonics  are going to change those clearances dynamically.

 

- If I read the drawing right there are two gasket seals for each hot combustion zone - the usual block to head one and , it seems , a second one as two V-6 crankcases are bolted togehter to form the diamond shape. How you crush up first one gasket then crush up one at 90 degrees to it without everythng shifting may be bit tricky.

 

In a NA version as shown the big gain in piston area wil be partially offset by lower valve area to total bore area which could limit breathing.

 

Maybe better if it were a turbo unit with a single diamond block casting - less fire joints and CR lower so clearances less critical plus valve area maybe not a power limiter.

- Around TDC the pistons move very little per degree of crank rotation.

 

- Once the crankcases are bolted together the critical tolerance will be flatness of the deck - easily accomplished by milling after trial assembly. Tolerance on the gap between the two crankcases created by the gasket could be fairly loose without creating problems.

 

- Valve area doesn't seem to be a problem. Ferrari didn't use all of the (oval) space available for valves in this drawing.


Edited by gruntguru, 12 December 2013 - 01:22.


#24 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 12 December 2013 - 05:03

Gruntguru , you know far, far, far more about these things than me but what force is going to resist the combustion pressure at the 90 degree intersection betwen teh two gaskets please?

 

I am probably dumb but I don't see what clamping force would be available in that gap.



#25 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 December 2013 - 06:32

The simplest solution would be for the gasket between the crankcases (probably a metal shim) to be thin and protrude slightly at the deck face. More complex solutions include a metal O-ring or "fire ring" around each bore (oval) set in a groove machined into the deck. Fairly common in high boost turbo applications.



#26 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,392 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 December 2013 - 09:08

I think they were called either Mills rings or Dykes rings when I was involved in taking Imp engines to as much as 60 hp (not dynoed)



#27 SimonW

SimonW
  • New Member

  • 28 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:14

I can see nothing that suggests that it is not a one piece crankcase casting.  Not technical reason why not, and no signs of a split in the patent drawing nor the photo.  Also, in 1994 it would almost certainly use a dry cylinder liner - looks like item 30 in the patent drawing.

 

Simon



#28 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 12 December 2013 - 16:47

I stand corrected - I've found the full patent application here and only one block!

 

http://patft.uspto.g...7818&RS=5477818

 

It refers to a single block! - a lot of detail on the oil system and  six valve heads are mentioned so I guess breathing should be OK.


Edited by mariner, 12 December 2013 - 16:53.


#29 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,066 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 12 December 2013 - 19:25

I think they were called either Mills rings or Dykes rings when I was involved in taking Imp engines to as much as 60 hp (not dynoed)

Wills rings, surely?



#30 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,392 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 December 2013 - 22:34

That's it, thanks



#31 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 13 December 2013 - 04:24

The engine certainly is a very clever and novel design. But as with all new ideas being novel in itself is not enough - what would be the potential advantages/disadvantages of the layout?
Advantages would be that the engine would be very short and compact and that the crankshafts could be much stronger and stiffer than a conventional V12.
But against the layout is that the top crankshaft would raise the engine's centre of gravity; the engine would run as a V6 (not a V12) with two cylinders firing simultaneously; also what could be the engine's greatest advantage (especially in a racing engine) - the possibility of greater valve area - would probably not be really possible. To take advantage of the oval combustion chamber it would best if the camshafts ran at 90 degrees to those shown in the drawing. Even then the possible valve size could not be much greater than that shown in the drawing. This is in contrast to the "oval piston" motorbike engines proposed a few years ago. This "oval" had straight sides and would have allowed a lot more valve area (which is probably why they were immediately banned). The "diamond" engines combustion chambers would also be a very odd shape.

Clearly Ferrari probably had a running engine to test thoroughly but the fact that it never appeared in road or race production probably means that that they found no particular advantage in the arrangement.