22 replies to this topic

[AD]

Would it be possible to have an engine placed in a tranverse rather than a longitudional(spelling?) manner in a F1 car. This would move the centre of gravity nearer towards the middle of the car, but would all the drawbacks make this an impossible idea? Also how much harder would it be to make the engine a stressed member of the chassis?
Thanks

[PDA]

An intriguing thought. The last transverse engine in F1 was the Honda V12 in 1964/5 a gem of an engine.

It would a very brave designer who bucked tradition to try this. I don;t know how "long" current engines are, but placed sideways, they would pesent more frontal area than existing layouts (or would this be offset by the positioing of the radiators?). If it was accompanied by a transverse gearbox, then there would be less space for the diffuser, which would be a big disadvantage. As far as weight distribution is concerned, it would, I think, push weight to the rear, and the current tyre regs need 45% weight to be on the front wheels, so that would probably not be an advantage. I'd love to see it though.

[unrepentant lurker]

It seems to me that the gearbox would be the killer. It would probably be off center. This would lead to a driveshafts of different lengths, meaning you have unequal torque to the wheels.

I am thinking about your average econobox, so the logic might be off a bit.

[desmo]

A PTO off the center of the crankshaft might address torsional vibration issues inherent in V-10 configuration.

[Ali_G]

Without the engine in a longditudinal fashion wouldn't it mena that the rear chassi would not exist. hence a new type of chassis would be needed ?

Niall

[Paolo]

I think it's difficult to use a transverse engine as a stressed member.
As far as I know, only Bugatti and Honda had a trnsverse engine.
I am sure Bugatti didn't use the engine as a stressed member (it was the 50's) ; I think neither Honda did, but I am not sure : that still looks like some kind of futuristic dream nowdays.
I am absolutely sure that the longitudinal engined Honda did not use the engine as a fully stressed member : the top of the engine was attached to a rear protrusion of the chassis, and, of course , the front was attached by bolts much like nowdays

[Powersteer]

Transverse engine would be most difficult when it comes to arrangment. How are you going to make the engine a stress memeber with the exaust coming out the other side? if you point it upwards then heat will go to unwanted places. A longitudal box will have to come off the center of the crank which will contribute to more moving parts and friction and so will a motorcycle style arrangement. The airbox would have fantastic flow into the engine but it would be bad for aerodynamics on the outer skin unless you would want to sacrifice that flow.


What i would love to see is a 120 degree V-12(much lower than Renaults V-10 from Vee angle to smaller cross section dimension). Long rods will be welcomed as the angle is steeper. Naturally it would also have perfect balancing and burning which is all compromised in todays V-10. Torque? well less the V-10 seems to need too much of a traction control today and IF torque is needed just use the same crank dimension as the V-10's.

[AD]

PDA,

As far as weight distribution is concerned, it would, I think, push weight to the rear, and the current tyre regs need 45% weight to be on the front wheels, so that would probably not be an advantage

Would it not push weight towards the front rather than towards the rear of the car? Aren't all the engines in a rectangular shape, and if so wouldn't the centre of gravity of the engine be pushed towards the front of the car in a tranverse fashion?

[Top Fuel F1]

Originally posted by AD
Would it be possible to have an engine placed in a tranverse rather than a longitudional(spelling?) manner

I saw Don Garlits try a Top Fuel dragster with a transversely mounted engine in the 70s. It drove the rear wheels with a huge bike chain. It made it down the track; but I don't know how long he messed with this. In any event I never saw it again.

Rgds;

[PDA]

The point about attachment to the tub is very valid. It would need a "cradle" of some kind, and that would increase weight.

[Bluehair]

Hey TFF1, I knew that was coming! I thought Big Daddy said he lost some 20% of his power through a series of gears rather than a chain. Are you sure the sidewinder used a chain? I think the car suffered from severe tireshake as well. At any rate, there is a really cool article in this month's Racecar Engineering with a Suzuki powered (transversely mounted like bikes) open wheeler. Check it out!

[Top Fuel F1]

Originally posted by Bluehair
Hey TFF1, I knew that was coming! I thought Big Daddy said he lost some 20% of his power through a series of gears rather than a chain. Are you sure the sidewinder used a chain? I think the car suffered from severe tireshake as well.

I only saw it a one match race long ago. Yes, I'm sure it was a chain. Of course that was back when the Top Fuel cars had 1/3 the power they have today. Also I don't know how many chains he was breaking. Also I never saw him use this car at a points race.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Top Fuel F1


I only saw it a one match race long ago. Yes, I'm sure it was a chain. Of course that was back when the Top Fuel cars had 1/3 the power they have today. Also I don't know how many chains he was breaking. Also I never saw him use this car at a points race.

I remember pictures in Hot Rod Magazine of a sidewinder engine/axle arrangement... the axle running through the engine valley just above the cam, driven by a wide Morse chain off the clutch. I remember wondering about crankshaft ground clearance with that arrangement. I don't recall it being a Garlits effort though... I'm thinking another old-timer; Art Malone maybe... but then I think Malone was a Garlits partner/employee at times, particularly on some of his experimental cars. Memory's a little fuzzy after 30 years or so.

[desmo]

Here are a couple of early mid-engine sidewinder top fuelers from 1960.

First the Jack Chrisman "Piranha"



And now the Jones-Mailliard racer of the same year. Note the chain drive.



And a contemporary article from Hot Rod magazine about Don Garlits' sidewinder (sadly sans the original photos):

http://northernthund...sidewinder.html

The early days of drag racing were a hotbed of fascinating experiment and innovation.

[Ray Bell]

Intelligent design of the block etc would allow conventional mounting to the tub to eliminate the need for stays.

[Engineguy]

Desmo,
I'd put the sidewinder I recall exactly halfway in between the 1960 and 1982 cars in your post. Sadly, in a moment of stupidity, I put a full 25 year collection of Hot Rod Magazine in the dumpster during a relocation in 1988.

[Top Fuel F1]

Yes Garlits was a great innovator and the last of the few guys in Top Fuel that did every aspect of racing himself. The only person doing that today is Warren Johnson in Pro-Stock. Today 90% of the time the Top Fuel Crew Chiefs are the real stars (making the call on the pneumatic timer settings). The drivers sign autographs, pack the parachutes (in some cases) and give interviews while in the pit area.

Rgds;

[wheel]

You people dont have a clue...

Placing the engine in a transverse position:

Imagine the drag of a sideways engine, compared to the benifits (what, a slight reduction in the rotational inertia of the vehicle by keeping the mass closer to the centre?)

Plus as was mentioned by some other dude, the exhaust problem.:yawn:

[Dan_G]

The general consensus would say that the practicality problems of a transverse engine would at least offset any weight distribution advantage. It probably wouldnt really help weight distribution, as the engine would end up being mounted further to the rear most likely. Even if you wanted to mount the engine transversly in order to move it slightly forward for weight distribution, you couldnt. AS best I can tell, you would have to relocate the fuel tanks, which would be bad. The fuel tanks really should be as close to the center of gravity of the car as possible, in order to limit the effect of fuel load changes on weight distribution.

I actually think the first F1 car to use the engine as a stressed member of the chassis was the Lotus 49 in '67. I believe Lotus actually asked Duckworth to design the Cosworth DFV V-8 to be a stressed member of the chassis from the beginning of the project.

[GunStar]

Ferrari 412T

Transverse gearboxed flat engined car in the late 70s. Only dropped due to the inability of the engine to accomidate Ground Effects and they subsequently built their Turbos. Wouldn't take much for Ferrari to create a transverse engined car. The 308/328 was a transverse engine.

Probably won't happen though.

[Engineguy]

In reality, any perceived chance of moving the engine mass forward is shot down, in the case of a Vee engine, by the need for a decent exhaust system. We'll never see a transverse engine in an F1 car... unless the engine displacement rule gets down in the sub one litre range where an inline four would start to make sense... but at that point the engine is so small (for a car) that you'd be going tranverse for gearing loss reasons, not mass relocation concerns.

[Dan_G]

EngineGuy,

I dont see much chance practicality to a transverse engine, but...

Could you not exhaust the engine out the top of the body cowlings? Im think perhaps similar to a combination of McLaren's sidepod exhaust and Ferrari's top rear exhaust? Perhaps exhaust out of the rear portion of the air box for the front facing cylinder bank and a Ferrari type exhaust for the rear facing cylinder bank?

Just a thought...

[Engineguy]

Dan,

Where the exhaust ends up was not my concern... where it exits the cylinder head was. For Vee angles up to about 100 degrees the exhaust headers add width to the engine... and for wider Vee angle engines, where possibly the exhausts don't add width, the wide Vee angle itself makes the engine so wide that rotating it 90 degrees to the transverse position doesn't move its C of M.