Jump to content


Photo

Engines, why not a 180 degree angle?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 jim_nolan

jim_nolan
  • New Member

  • 19 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 13:41

Hi,

While discussing the 111 degree Renault V10 with a few friends a question was asked, why don't the teams go the whole way and make a 180 degree V10?

Would the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (such as the lower COG)?

If this has been discuss already please towards the thread, thanks.

Regards,
Jim

Advertisement

#2 jim_nolan

jim_nolan
  • New Member

  • 19 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 13:49

If this has been discuss already please towards the thread, thanks.



Ahem, make that point me towards the thread, thanks :blush:

Jim

#3 zak

zak
  • Member

  • 218 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 13:52

I had read that they went to 111 degrees to lower the centre of gravity in the engine block. OK, makes sense. Going all the way to 180 degrees would create a very wide engine - possibly too wide for the chasis creating new aero issues. Also, with the "V" shape, the various engine components can be tucked in and around the "V" in order to save space. With the lack of these spaces in a 180 design (assuming opposing cylinder banks - cylinders moving outwards) you'd have to find new ways to route the pipes. Gravity could also be a problem - the top edge of the piston might not get as much oil as the bottom edge.

There are probably a million other reasons why a 180 design wouldn't work. These just came to mind as I typed.

Not an engineer. Just play one on Atlas F1.

#4 kos

kos
  • Member

  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 14:12

Here's a thread with discussion of this topic

http://www.atlasf1.c...?threadid=21783

#5 P1 Senna

P1 Senna
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 January 2002 - 14:14

Consider yourself redirected: V engines vs. Boxers :)

Packaging (width) and plumbing (exhaust layout) issues are among the concerns. You can bet that if boxers were the way to go, someone would have done it by now in the 10 cylinder era.

The wide angle solution seems to be the best of both worlds, if the vibrational issues can be dealt with. And it seems Renault are getting it figured out.

#6 marion5drsn

marion5drsn
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 January 2002 - 14:54

Speedvision; The experts on the program, “Year in Racing” Made a comment about making GP engines with close to 180 degrees bank angle. It is my opinion that we won’t ever see this happen and not because of the rules but because of the worst case scenario of the Secondary Shake being at 180 and 108 degree’s bank angle. The width of the engine being not considered in the total equation. If these engines were still being run at 8 or 9 thousand rpm it might be in the ballpark, but not at 17,000 rpm. I’m even becoming more and more suspicious of the engines claiming more than 90 degrees.
If they were to go 126 degrees that would make much more sense than anything closer to 108 or 180 degrees. M. L. Anderson

#7 AndreasNystrom

AndreasNystrom
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:06

Isnt 180deg a Boxer-Engine??

#8 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:28

Not necesseraly. Porsche's flat-6 IS a boxer, while Ferrari's flat-12 isn't! The differnce is in the relative movement of the pistons.

#9 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:37

The current regs state that the engine has to be a V 10, (CMIIW) and if you go to 180 deg - boxer or not - it aint a vee...

#10 DEVO

DEVO
  • Member

  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:50

Originally posted by Garagiste
The current regs state that the engine has to be a V 10, (CMIIW) and if you go to 180 deg - boxer or not - it aint a vee...


Yeah it is... V means 2 banks of cylinders. Not that it has to have some angle greater then 180.

Also don't the regs say just 10 cylinders... whether you choose to make I10 or a V10 or W10 is up to the team.

#11 david_martin

david_martin
  • Member

  • 1,989 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:57

Originally posted by Garagiste
The current regs state that the engine has to be a V 10, (CMIIW) and if you go to 180 deg - boxer or not - it aint a vee...


OK :)

"The engines must have ten cylinders and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular" - nothing more than that. A 180 degree layout would be permissible - it just presents a lot of pretty formidible packaging constraints that make it more or less completely impractical in todays cars.

#12 ffiloseta

ffiloseta
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 28 January 2002 - 17:03

Originally posted by DEVO
Yeah it is... V means 2 banks of cylinders. Not that it has to have some angle greater then 180.


Not true... V means the two banks of cylinders form a V. Subaru, Porsche, Alfa Romeo and Ferrari (maybe even someone else) have or have had engines with two engine banks opposed 180°. They were called BOXERS or FLATS, never Vs...

#13 DEVO

DEVO
  • Member

  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 28 January 2002 - 17:53

ffiloseta,

i stand corrected... which is why i mentioned the part about the regs just requiring 10 cylinder in any arrangement.

#14 DingleBerry

DingleBerry
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 28 January 2002 - 20:37

I don't know about a 180 degree engine being impossible. Niki Lauda won the world championship twice. Jody Scheckter won the WDC once. Both were driving 180 degree flat-12 Ferrari boxer engines. But this was a couple of decades ago, of course. Now in contemporary times, for the reasons mentioned above, a boxer wouldn't be such a good idea. Mainly I think the packaging for the exhausts would be very problematical.

One configuration that hasn't been mentioned here, is that of an inverted V-10. This isn't such a daft idea. Yes the crank would be at the top and cyl heads at the bottom but the engines c-of-g would would probably be a lot lower. You could pipe the exhausts neatly out through the centre of inverted V. Also there would be plenty of room for ancillaries on the ouside of the V.

Most of the German fighters in WW2 had Daimler Benz inverted V12 engines.

Daimler

#15 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,230 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 28 January 2002 - 23:56

Inverted V Thread

#16 Bex37

Bex37
  • Member

  • 2,487 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 29 January 2002 - 00:01

Originally posted by DEVO
ffiloseta,

i stand corrected... which is why i mentioned the part about the regs just requiring 10 cylinder in any arrangement.

Right you are.
Extract of Technical Regulations:
ARTICLE 5 : ENGINE
5.1 Engine specification :
5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.
5.1.2 Engine capacity must not exceed 3000 cc.
5.1.3 Supercharging is forbidden.
5.1.4 All engines must have 10 cylinders and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular.
5.1.5 Engines may have no more than 5 valves per cylinder.


#17 DingleBerry

DingleBerry
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 29 January 2002 - 08:56

I see that inverted V engines have already been discussed in some detail. Interesting thread.

I don't really want to re-ignite the hot (very hot!) issue about boxer and non-boxer engines raised in that thread, but in my view the issue is a semantic one. A flat-4, flat-6, flat-8, flat-10, flat-12 or any 180 degree horizontally-opposed engine, can safely be described as a boxer engine. I think the term "boxer" is a simple generic term describing any flat engine, regardless of crank layout, firing order, or the number of crank journals. Anyway that's the way I've always understood it.

One small and frivolous point about the DB inverted V engine described in the link I give above, was that the valve gear is described as having "twin UNDERHEAD camshafts". :p Which made me chuckle.:p

#18 jim_nolan

jim_nolan
  • New Member

  • 19 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 09:23

Thanks for the information guys, and thanks to Kos and P1 Senna for redirecting me to the revelant thread. :up:

Tis interesting stuff.

Regard,
Jim

#19 Croaky

Croaky
  • Member

  • 193 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 09:43

Thanks for redirecting us to the inverted V thread. My brain fell out half-way through reading all that bickering. :) I liked it when the Ferrari 356GT4 BB engine was described as non-boxer. Silly old me thought that BB stood for "Berlinetta Boxer." Even Ferrari don't know the difference!

Advertisement

#20 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 11:06

Here is the difference between BOXER and NON-BOXER flat engines:

http://www.geocities...byrkus/flat.jpg

I hope, it's understandable. It's just became common, that every flat engine is called 'boxer', wether it is or isn't such.

#21 DingleBerry

DingleBerry
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 29 January 2002 - 11:59

Hi byrkus. Very much like to read that boxer stuff. But that link gives a "page not found" message.

#22 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 12:39

Yes, so I noticed... :down: :(

'Godfather, what should I do??' ;)

#23 david_martin

david_martin
  • Member

  • 1,989 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 29 January 2002 - 13:05

Originally posted by byrkus
Yes, so I noticed... :down: :(

'Godfather, what should I do??' ;)


Try this link - I hope you dont mind me taking the liberty of taking a copy of your image and putting it somewhere which might prove a little bit more accessible :)

#24 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 830 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 13:50

;) :up: OK, just that it could be seen!! And I hope everybody can see the difference.

#25 ffiloseta

ffiloseta
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 15:27

So in non boxer flats, the connecting rods of opposite pistons connect to the same arm (?) of the crankshaft. Uhm, much less torque than boxers :

#26 Croaky

Croaky
  • Member

  • 193 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 January 2002 - 16:23

OK, so what are the real-life performance differences between a 180 degree V12 and a Boxer 12? What are the effects of having opposing pistons moving in the same direction rather than in opposite directions? Why did Ferrari do this on their flat-12 F1 engine?

#27 ffiloseta

ffiloseta
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 30 January 2002 - 01:52

There is no such thing as a 180 degree V12, but an F12.

You don't call a "dash" a "vee", do you ?

#28 Croaky

Croaky
  • Member

  • 193 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 30 January 2002 - 08:48

I'm making a 30 degree dash shape with two fingers. :lol:

#29 Ben

Ben
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 01 February 2002 - 17:54

Peace, chance would be a fine thing :lol:

Ben

#30 Chui

Chui
  • Member

  • 1,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 03 February 2002 - 19:20

I think that a true 'Boxer' engine configuration has opposite piston rods attached to the same crankshaft throw. I don't know if there are power advantages [maybe due to less friction from less main bearings?] or maybe it's due to exhaust coupling configuration capability. I dunno. I'll look into it, though.

#31 marion5drsn

marion5drsn
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 04 February 2002 - 21:32

DingleBerry; finally getting around to answering your statement about Lauda winning the world championship with a 180-degree
Twelve cylinder block by 120-degree crank . I haven’t any history on this particular engine. I have made sketches of two, four, six, eight and ten cylinder engines and find that only the ten cylinder Opposed piston engine does not “box” which it must if it is to prevent the Secondary Shake, it has a non-symmetrical crankshaft This also doesn’t mean that you can’t build engines with Secondary Shake as De Dion-Bouton, Hispano-Suiza, Cosworth, Novi, Wolseley, Wright and Cadillac 1914 to 1923 built many V-8 90-degree block by 180-degree crank engines that shook but people just took it as a necessary evil. Also many of these engines did not turn anywhere near 17,000 rpm. I haven’t made any sketches of the Vee twelve-cylinder engine, as this would take an inordinate amount of time, but then again I might figure an easy way to find out if the pistons box with pistons not necessarily adjacent.
I think that inability to use the underside of the car as a venturi plus the width of the engine as a mount for the suspension plus the Secondary Shake has killed the opposed 10-cylinder 180-degree engine as dead as a doornail. M.L. Anderson

#32 ffiloseta

ffiloseta
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 05 February 2002 - 02:57

marion5drsn: thanks!. OPPOSED Cylinder is the correct denomination. Every time I wrote "flat" I had this queasy feeling of wrongness, or at least "non-exactitude" (spelling?).