Engines, why not a 180 degree angle?
#1
Posted 28 January 2002 - 13:41
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
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
Jim
#3
Posted 28 January 2002 - 13:52
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
Posted 28 January 2002 - 14:12
#5
Posted 28 January 2002 - 14:14
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
Posted 28 January 2002 - 14:54
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
Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:06
#8
Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:28
#9
Posted 28 January 2002 - 16:37
#10
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
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
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
Posted 28 January 2002 - 17:53
i stand corrected... which is why i mentioned the part about the regs just requiring 10 cylinder in any arrangement.
#14
Posted 28 January 2002 - 20:37
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
#16
Posted 29 January 2002 - 00:01
Right you are.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.
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
Posted 29 January 2002 - 08:56
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". Which made me chuckle.
#18
Posted 29 January 2002 - 09:23
Tis interesting stuff.
Regard,
Jim
#19
Posted 29 January 2002 - 09:43
Advertisement
#20
Posted 29 January 2002 - 11:06
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
Posted 29 January 2002 - 11:59
#22
Posted 29 January 2002 - 12:39
'Godfather, what should I do??' ;)
#24
Posted 29 January 2002 - 13:50
#25
Posted 29 January 2002 - 15:27
#26
Posted 29 January 2002 - 16:23
#27
Posted 30 January 2002 - 01:52
You don't call a "dash" a "vee", do you ?
#28
Posted 30 January 2002 - 08:48
#29
Posted 01 February 2002 - 17:54
Ben
#30
Posted 03 February 2002 - 19:20
#31
Posted 04 February 2002 - 21:32
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
Posted 05 February 2002 - 02:57