7 replies to this topic

[Henri Greuter]

Hi all,

 

There are several heated discussions about preferences of engine lay-outs going on, and I admit I have liked participation in that to make my point of view clear as well.

 

But here is a question I can't find decent answers for yet.

I am afraid this is a very technological matter, it has nothing to do with appreciation of a certain engine concept yes or no. And it is very likely a question more aimed at people with engineering knowledge.

Moderators: If this is the wrong forum, please move it to the right one.

 

 

First: capsule history.

When turbocharged engines were banned from 1989 on we saw a mix of 3.5 liter V8, V10 and V12's appear. Gradually the focus went onto the V10 as appearing to be the best compromise between V8 and V12, When engine size was reduced from 3.5 liter to 3 liter in 1995 we saw a further shift to V10s, even Ferrari sacrificed their hallowed V12 for the sake of efficiency and came with V10s. Common sense at last.

 

In the mid eightties, writers Gerth Hack and Fritz Indra had already predicted in their book "Formel 1 Motoren" that for a 3 liter engine the V10 could well be the ideal compromise configuration for all kind of reasons I won't discuss here, would be too much. What they had done was comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the known V8 and V12 concept to another and they concluded that a V10 appeared to be the best of both worlds.

Well, for 3.5 liters and eventually for 3 liter engines as well, it appeared they were indeed right.

 

Now it has been stated that about 2000 or so, FIA mandated the use of V10 configuration engines in order to avoid yet another needless spending of fortunes to develop a V12. The story I have heard is that Toyota had looked into the V12 concept another time and were considering to make their F1 debut in 2002 with a V12. But FIA interfered in that and made V10's mandatory in order to avoid engine builders having to spend money yet again in sorting out a new confiuration of engine instead of developing the current one.

 

End capsule history

 

My question is the following.

What kind of reasons did Toyota and/or others to consider a V12 engine again? I can't come up with any good arguement that makes the use of a V12 making any sense compared with a V10.

The old disadvantages were still there: Compared with V10s, V12s were larger, heavier, required more fuel which has to be stored in the car, together with the larger engine. Besides that, a V12 might produce more power, certainily at high revs and even smaller pistons may wll have raised  the obtainable rpm levels (hence more power) bot the torque of such engines would have been so low that such a V12 would have had a very tiny usable rev range, thus difficult to drive.

The V10 had proven itself to be the best compromise by far by now, so what was by that time the new invention or advantage that a V12 powered car could have had over a V10 engined one? was it engine related or had it something to do with the overall packing of a car?

 

Thanks,

 

Regards,

 

Henri

[FerrariV12]

I'm not the greatest authority on this and I'm basing this on nothing other than hazy memories of late 90s talk on Usenet when I was about 15/16, but I do remember a discussion around advances in certain lighter metals for construction of the engines that reduced one of the 12's disadvantage (weight) somewhat, and swung the equation further towards a 12 being more optimal (or at least less sub-optimal) than a 10. I don't know if this is related to the beryllium that I remember seeming to be be banned anyway around that same period of time.

 

I'm afraid I can't really dredge up anything more specific than that from memory, I just remember the post being from someone a lot cleverer than me, if I remember rightly it was in response to a post that the teenage me made entitled "V10s suck", that a more mature being would have titled "The FIA are wrong to mandate the number of cylinders" or something 

[SenorSjon]

A V12 is naturally balanced while a V10 has to be balanced. If you can offset the extra weight of the engine due to newer construction methods, the V12 was thought to be a faster engine. But not only Toyota was eying a V12. Rumour has it Ferrari and perhaps Honda were experimenting as well. 

 

The technology trends in F1 usually shift to anything the winner makes up. Renault was mighty succesfull with his V10, so everyone starts building one. 

 

Fast forward to 2014 and you have all rules carved in stone. Piston size, V-angle, the works. Not so much in the V8-12 era where everyone was experimenting. If I remember correctly, Renault had a rather unsuccesful large V-angle engine to bring the centre of gravity down when they re-entered F1.

Edited by SenorSjon, 13 May 2015 - 11:43.

[Radoye]

V12 does have some natural advantages:

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/V12_engine

 

 

Since each cylinder bank is essentially a straight-6 which is by itself in both primary and secondary balance, a V12 is automatically in primary and secondary balance no matter which V angle is used, and therefore it needs no balance shafts. A four-stroke 12 cylinder engine has an even firing order if cylinders fire every 60° of crankshaft rotation, so a V12 with cylinder banks at a multiples of 60° (60°, 120°, or 180°) will have even firing intervals without using split crankpins.\

 

So, essentially, V12 runs smoother and causes less vibration than some other layouts.

 

The downside of going with more cylinders is not so much with packaging (size) as much as with internal friction in the engine (more moving parts) which a.) requires more of the engine power to be overcome, and b.) means there are more things to break on the engine compared with some simpler layouts.

 

HERE is a nice table showing how the engine formula in F1 progressed over time and when what was being banned.

[BRG]

IIRC Keith Duckworth of Cosworth - who forgot more about engines than we collectively probably know - once said that the optimum size for a four stroke cylinder was 375cc.  Hence, for a 3 litre engine, an 8 cylinder layout was the best and so he designed the DFV as a V8.  Others tried V12s but the DFV was always better during the 3 litre F1 era as it was  lighter, less mechanical power loss, more fuel efficient & more reliable although the latter was more about Cosworth than the V8 format.

[Rob]

The Ferrari V12 always came into its own at horsepower tracks like Monza or the old Hockenheim. At tracks where the engine wasn't so critical, like Monaco, a V8 would be preferred as it is lighter and more fuel efficient. The V10 seemed to be the best compromise so that's what ended up winning out.

 

I always think that if you know you don't stand much of a chance of winning, you should gamble and do something different to everyone else. So it's a shame really that everyone adopted the same solution. As a team manager I'd go for the odd surprise podium over and above a more consistent supply of lower placings.

[Dan333SP]

 

Fast forward to 2014 and you have all rules carved in stone. Piston size, V-angle, the works. Not so much in the V8-12 era where everyone was experimenting. If I remember correctly, Renault had a rather unsuccesful large V-angle engine to bring the centre of gravity down when they re-entered F1.

 

Yup, the Renault RS21, RS22, and RS23 V10s for the Benetton/Renault teams of '01-'03 had a 112 degree V angle-

 

http://www.f1technic...3/benetton-b201

 

Clever idea, but it was an initial disaster. I do remember that 2001 car having a distinct sound compared to the other V10s on the grid at the time.

 

If Ferrari were indeed considering returning to a 12 cylinder design if Toyota went that route, I wonder whether they had maintained a parallel development path for their 3L V12 engine that ran in 1995 alongside the V10s that came in for '96? It'd be expensive, but maybe if they reached a point in weight, packaging, and power that made sense to switch they would have?

[SenorSjon]

The Ferrari V12 always came into its own at horsepower tracks like Monza or the old Hockenheim. At tracks where the engine wasn't so critical, like Monaco, a V8 would be preferred as it is lighter and more fuel efficient. The V10 seemed to be the best compromise so that's what ended up winning out.

 

I always think that if you know you don't stand much of a chance of winning, you should gamble and do something different to everyone else. So it's a shame really that everyone adopted the same solution. As a team manager I'd go for the odd surprise podium over and above a more consistent supply of lower placings.

 

You could also reason that with the safety rule influx from 1994 onwards after the deaths at Imola, high power tracks were being moved off the calendar fast or fast parts were dumbed down with chicanes. With only Hockenheim and Monza left in an expanding calendar, it was perhaps the best middle of the road thing to build a V10. Later developments could grant the V12 a comeback, but that was cut short.

Edited by SenorSjon, 13 May 2015 - 13:10.