Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

F1's biggest technical blunders


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#101 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 09 October 2016 - 20:53

As you go around the corner faster than before that centrifugal effect is not linear, 2x corner speed means 4x centrifugal? right? Does that also mean that the relative CoG in that moment if 2cm higher static now is 8cm higher dynamic?

 

On the other end. If you have allmost no corner speed/zero centrifugal effect.. does CoG even matter? I do not think so.. So if races had that as the norm... you run a giant engine in a cigar shaped missile .. wait a minute..

 

Aha!

 

1910 and 1912

BeastofTurin_1000-700x310.jpg1003412U75483Ba.jpg

As the cornering speeds went up they slowly lowered the cars while maintaining the shape.

10 years later +-

20_Duesenberg_Special-12-DV-11-AI_08.jpg

25 years later +-

31843_1172880.jpg

 

Fast forward to 1990s and the cars where basically pancakes

senna-mclaren.jpg

 

If you want to discuss further the answer is probably.. depends on how much you sacrifice to win back, minor sacrifice to CoG can and probably does give huge benefits in Downforce today. Hence the high noses++ (carbonfiber is very light too so that helps alot)

 

I wonder who had the lowest CoG of all the F1 cars ever made.


Edited by MatsNorway, 09 October 2016 - 21:53.


Advertisement

#102 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 10 October 2016 - 05:37

I'd say the McLarens MP4/18 (the one that never raced) belongs here as well ..


Edited by Hyatt, 10 October 2016 - 05:37.


#103 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 October 2016 - 11:59

Surely the CoG was shite on the H16? And as the downforce/grip goes up, so does the importance of Low CoG

In the high wing F1 era, downforce was applied directly to the suspension uprights. So the engine was heavy sprung mass with a high CoG and downforce was unsprung applied at a very low height. My belief is that downforce would have mitigated the CoG and rear weight bias limitations of the H16 to a greater degree than for low wings.

 

It's worth having a look at the lovely 1.5 litre V8 BRMs. The fuel load was carried very low down (drivers' hip height) except for high fuel races when a pannier tank over the drivers' knees was used. The changes for an engine using almost twice as much fuel required a complete rethink.



#104 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 October 2016 - 12:29

On the other end. If you have allmost no corner speed/zero centrifugal effect.. does CoG even matter? 

It seems to matter for Land Speed Record cars and bikes... Getting started in a straight line is a big problem and many of the failures occur way below top speed owing to steering limitations.

---

Lowest CoG of F1 cars? Perhaps one made after the original Nurburgring was abandoned for F1 when ride height could be a bit lower -- except at Monaco or Long Beach or wherever... The Ferrari 312T3 (engine designed for low CoG, wide low monocoque) in low fuel practice condition at a flat circuit would be my bet. Going back further in time, the Porsches would have been good, even with Dan Gurney at the wheel.



#105 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 October 2016 - 20:31

I do not think so Charlie. There is no tricking a mass mounted high that is trown about. LSR cars is a different story they drive on "dirt" with thousands of hp have no grip and spins out. Thats all there is to it i think. Makes you wonder why they do not use active aero to get up to speed faster and TC. Probably some rule limitations in many classes.

 

I think the V8 cars with refueling had the lowest CoG, no batteries either.



#106 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 October 2016 - 11:49

I do not think so Charlie. There is no tricking a mass mounted high that is trown about. 

High wings mounted on the uprights apply more consistent downforce than low (or high wings) mounted on the sprung chassis. Upright mounted wings are subject to inclination change as a result of camber change. But they are independent of chassis roll. Think about how the Lotus 86 and 88 twin chassis designs separated dynamic and aero loads.

 

All the same, I agree that dynamic load change owing to a high CoG engine like the H16 would be undesirable. 



#107 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 October 2016 - 12:10

LSR cars is a different story they drive on "dirt" with thousands of hp have no grip and spins out. Thats all there is to it i think. 

Even when testing on airport runways, LSR cars and bikes have problems getting off the line. And they have limited steering/balance at any speed. I guess that design compromises require that the vehicle is stable for a range of speeds (which may not be possible on a runway) and that the courageous driver has a lot of work to do...



#108 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 October 2016 - 08:27

High wings mounted on the uprights apply more consistent downforce than low (or high wings) mounted on the sprung chassis. Upright mounted wings are subject to inclination change as a result of camber change. But they are independent of chassis roll. Think about how the Lotus 86 and 88 twin chassis designs separated dynamic and aero loads.

 

All the same, I agree that dynamic load change owing to a high CoG engine like the H16 would be undesirable. 

Slightly off subject, watching  90s Top Fuel cars with high wings [those cars have no suspension] with the cars lifting the front and rotating over backwards. Wings are not quite so agressive now , now they literally break the chassis. Often!  At well over 250mph. There is a well known clip of Don Garlits managing to turn the car around in the air and start driving back down the track!

 

I have seen wings mounted on the suspension of Sprintcars [70s] They were an accident happening



#109 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 08 December 2016 - 12:19

The thing was with Garlits was that he probably dialled too much clutch in or something, and I don't think they were using wheelie bars back then. The air got under it, he pedalled it to keep it going and then it came down and smashed over, direct drive kept it going by itself.

 

Swamp Rat 30, the car in the clip was one of the best Top Fuellers ever made and was one of the first to use an enclosed front end and canopy. He had horrendous problems getting the front tyres to work, reverting to a form of belt in the end.

 

He built another streamliner I think, as id Gary Ormsby and a few others, but only Garlits really perfected it, so good it went into the Smithsonian.

 

I don't think the wings have changed that much, and as you know, TF cars and Funnies now only run 8th mile, so probably not as relevant as they were. But most cars now run wheelie bars to prevent flips like that, they were actually quite common when times starting getting down into the mid 5's.


Edited by chunder27, 08 December 2016 - 12:22.


#110 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 08 December 2016 - 20:56


I wonder who had the lowest CoG of all the F1 cars ever made.

 

This has to be close. It had other issues, but a small 4 cylinder engine laid over on it's side with a big turbo.

 

<Well, ****, I've put about 6 pics in here and none actually work. Google Brabham BT55>


Edited by Fat Boy, 08 December 2016 - 21:06.


#111 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,391 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 08 December 2016 - 23:45

Given that current F1 cars are designed to be well below the weight limit and carry ballast, wouldn't be surprised if they had the lowest C of G.



#112 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 09 December 2016 - 12:23

Given that current F1 cars are designed to be well below the weight limit and carry ballast, wouldn't be surprised if they had the lowest C of G.

My thoughts exacly. But probably not the very newest. More like the V8 generation pre. Hybrid tech or RB05 which never ran KERS in 2009

It also had Pullrod suspension so all that weight was lown down.. Can not be much but every bit helps.

http://james.onetwen...9/02/rb05_2.jpg



#113 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 11 December 2016 - 23:00

&nbsp;

The thing was with Garlits was that he probably dialled too much clutch in or something, and I don't think they were using wheelie bars back then. The air got under it, he pedalled it to keep it going and then it came down and smashed over, direct drive kept it going by itself.
&nbsp;
Swamp Rat 30, the car in the clip was one of the best Top Fuellers ever made and was one of the first to use an enclosed front end and canopy. He had horrendous problems getting the front tyres to work, reverting to a form of belt in the end.
&nbsp;
He built another streamliner I think, as id Gary Ormsby and a few others, but only Garlits really perfected it, so good it went into the Smithsonian.
&nbsp;
I don't think the wings have changed that much, and as you know, TF cars and Funnies now only run 8th mile, so probably not as relevant as they were. But most cars now run wheelie bars to prevent flips like that, they were actually quite common when times starting getting down into the mid 5's.

&nbsp;

''TF cars and Funnies now only run 8th mile,''

no it has been 1000 feet for several years for fuel cars
not an 1/8 but there are 1/8 mile tracks and races just not top level pro drags

#114 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 December 2016 - 23:23

Aussies and Europe still run the 402. Americans have gone all soft..



#115 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 13 December 2016 - 00:07

Yeah - motorsport should remain a blood sport.



#116 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 December 2016 - 19:57

Allright top fuel was a bit extreme.. but going down in distance is like saying to Usain bolt that he now have to run the 60m.. Thats just stupid.. There are other ways.



#117 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 29 December 2016 - 23:22

Aussies and Europe still run the 402. Americans have gone all soft..

 

Stand behind 4 top fuelers launching and tell me about soft.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=SBrS__ykhjE



#118 philipbain

philipbain
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 January 2017 - 12:53

What are the biggest blunders over the years, most recent in recollection was Virgins 2010 Fuel cell not being big enough to last a race

 

This isn't a unique occurrence, the 1988 Rial chassis as driven by Andrea De Cesaris also had an undersized fuel cell but it was left like this for the whole season, the reason given was that Gustav Brunner who was the lead designer of that car was given duff information as the to fuel consumption of the Cosworth DFZ 3.5 litre V8 that they were running that season. Its a shame as the chassis actually performed very well and on street tracks where fuel consumption was less critical it was competitive, the high point being a 4th place and 3 points at the 1988 USGP at Detroit.



#119 philipbain

philipbain
  • New Member

  • 7 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 January 2017 - 13:16

Perhaps the Jaguar R3? I assume someone will know how exactly but they didn't calibrate their wind tunnel correctly. Presumably they were using a different/new tunnel. Only once the car hit the track did they realise they had a dog on their hands that would spend most of the season racing Minardis.

 

The Jaguar R3's problems were very far from being only aerodynamic, indeed, the car had structural failings too, the front suspension assembly flexed alarmingly until the "B" spec chassis was introduced mid-season and there were also other baffling features, such as the brake calipers being mounted at the top of the brake hubs, thus raising the COG of the car's unsprung mass. I remember mutterings at the time that certain parties had deliberately sabotaged the design in order to usurp the team's management (Bobby Rahal and Niki Lauda at the time) and as the whole project was very much a Ford corporate marketing exercise this isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. The whole Jaguar F1 adventure is surely now a case study in how not to do F1, particularly from the standpoint of a large car manufacturer.



Advertisement

#120 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 10,133 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 04 January 2017 - 15:57

Around this time they were renting Swift's wind tunnel in California. They would design & manufacture parts for a 2 week program then fly them out, bolt them to the wind tunnel model, move & set up the model into the tunnel, run the program then strip it all out again & repeat the exercise every 2 weeks. Not an ideal way to run things, until Red Bull took over & started using the Bicester then Bedford ex DERA tunnel.



#121 savvy2210

savvy2210
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: September 16

Posted 14 January 2017 - 18:10

   The rear wing failure of both Jochen Rindt and Graham Hill's Lotus 49B at the 1969 Spanish G.P. Both drivers by good fortune were not injured. 



#122 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 9,811 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 15 January 2017 - 14:12

If I remember right, somewhere in 1995 there was a race in which Benetton lost their constructors points because of an illegal fuel blend used. Or more correct, the used fuel not matching the specs as it was told to be. In the years after the first turbo era there were some very wild fuel mixtures used with contents you would never find in straight pump fuel. A single liter from those blends was more expensive than filling up a Hypersupercar of that era to the brim.

 

Well all cars running Renault engines and thus ELF fuel had the same issue. Renault had prepared a small batch of fuel for homologation (?) and once had it approved manufactured a bigger batch for actual use which was intended similar but failed the test. McLaren had a simular issue with  Mika H√§kkinen couple of year later and was out right disualified. Wonder why the difference in treatment? Both had fuel which met the specifications but did not match with the provided sample. That was very bad rule enforcement.


Edited by Oho, 15 January 2017 - 14:13.


#123 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 4,555 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 15 January 2017 - 21:16

The rear wing failure of both Jochen Rindt and Graham Hill's Lotus 49B at the 1969 Spanish G.P. Both drivers by good fortune were not injured.


I think Jochen would have disputed that he was not injured.

Wing failures were hardly unique to Lotus, Jacky Ickx's Brabham had an even more spectacular wing failure in the very same race.

#124 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 19 January 2017 - 20:28

&nbsp;

In the high wing F1 era, downforce was applied directly to the suspension uprights. So the engine was heavy sprung mass with a high CoG and downforce was unsprung applied at a very low height. My belief is that downforce would have mitigated the CoG and rear weight bias limitations of the H16 to a greater degree than for low wings.
&nbsp;
It's worth having a look at the lovely 1.5 litre V8 BRMs. The fuel load was carried very low down (drivers' hip height) except for high fuel races when a pannier tank over the drivers' knees was used. The changes for an engine using almost twice as much fuel required a complete rethink.

&nbsp;

guys the H16 cars were pre-winged wonders
by the the time of the high wings BRM was running the v12's

and the whole H16 was complex heavy and under powered
in addition to being to high
better to blow with a SS or turbo the existing v8
then ether the H16 or the oversized v8 without boost
there was the huge tech blunder they had the 1.5 motors
but never thought of adding boost

#125 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 21 January 2017 - 17:31

there was the huge tech blunder they had the 1.5 motors
but never thought of adding boost

BRM knew an awful lot about centrifugal supercharging; that it was painful to use and would be even more painful on pump petrol rather than the custom racing fuels of the early 1950s. That turbo- and super-charging wouldn't work in F1 rules in 1966.

 

The 1.5 litre BRM F1 engine was very successful but it was never perfected. 



#126 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 23 January 2017 - 17:58

I think 300 hp was do-able with out intercoolers and minimum boost on pump gas and was enough to win in 66-67 time frame charge cooling is not a modern idea but goes back to 1910 nor is use on a IC engine as WW2 aircraft had them and diesels had them in the mid 50's GM built road cars with turbos in the 62 model year

#127 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 3,111 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 January 2017 - 17:11

Ferrari F92A double floor.

http://www.autosport...famous-failure/

#128 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 January 2017 - 03:15

Aussies and Europe still run the 402. Americans have gone all soft..

Aussies run a thousand foot too at most if not all tracks. Braking areas have been an issue for decades. Drag racers here in SA not so long ago wanted Jane Corp to extend the run off at AIR. bit of a problem as there is a road beyond the gravel pit. 

I believe Top fuel is now about 20mph slower and have another 40 yards or so of braking area. Most tracks have similar issues, both here and in the US. Not so long ago a fuel car? went through a fence in the US into I believe a wheat crop. No fire but they were lucky.

I believe most Sportsman series though still run 1/4 mile both in Oz and the US.



#129 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 January 2017 - 03:27

The thing was with Garlits was that he probably dialled too much clutch in or something, and I don't think they were using wheelie bars back then. The air got under it, he pedalled it to keep it going and then it came down and smashed over, direct drive kept it going by itself.

 

Swamp Rat 30, the car in the clip was one of the best Top Fuellers ever made and was one of the first to use an enclosed front end and canopy. He had horrendous problems getting the front tyres to work, reverting to a form of belt in the end.

 

He built another streamliner I think, as id Gary Ormsby and a few others, but only Garlits really perfected it, so good it went into the Smithsonian.

 

I don't think the wings have changed that much, and as you know, TF cars and Funnies now only run 8th mile, so probably not as relevant as they were. But most cars now run wheelie bars to prevent flips like that, they were actually quite common when times starting getting down into the mid 5's.

Those 'belts' were only used a short time and went to small helicopter? wheels and tyres.

300mph on the rims would be very exciting when the belts fell off the front wheels!



#130 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 30 January 2017 - 10:39

It was, and you are right Don did not put up with it for very long. He did get some tyres he could use eventually I think.

 

Some other things not strictly F1 related, but Noble tried to use billet wheels at Bonneville and struggled, as did Arfons and Breedlove when they started going over 500 mph on rubber.



#131 Pierce89

Pierce89
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 03 February 2017 - 17:58

Keith Duckworth (designer of the DFV) considered that the optimum size of a four stroke cylinder was 375cc. Which for a 3 litre engine means 8 cylinders. He was proved right over many years and many victories.

And then got murdered by 10 300cc cylinders

#132 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,958 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 03 February 2017 - 19:48

You aren't bothering about all those 6 and 4 cylinder turbo motors in between then?

 

And weren't they 10 350cc cylinders?  Which is closer to the Duckworth formula than 8 437.5cc cylinders.



#133 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 February 2017 - 04:25

Those 'belts' were only used a short time and went to small helicopter? wheels and tyres.
300mph on the rims would be very exciting when the belts fell off the front wheels!


What do you mean by "belts"?

#134 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 February 2017 - 05:26

 

What do you mean by "belts"?           

Read post #109.



#135 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 February 2017 - 09:19


Post 109 doesn't explain anything. Apparently "belts" means a form of industrial fan belt used as a tyre - doesn't sound like a great idea.

#136 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 6,275 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 04 February 2017 - 09:32

You aren't bothering about all those 6 and 4 cylinder turbo motors in between then?

And weren't they 10 350cc cylinders? Which is closer to the Duckworth formula than 8 437.5cc cylinders.

Pre 1995 yes, 1996 onwards, no.

#137 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 February 2017 - 18:50

And then got murdered by 10 300cc cylinders

Duckworth's assessment was made in the late 1960s. His assumptions were the basis for an engine design (DFV) that was effective for 15 years, so they were pretty good... 

 

Think about how the assessment was made: on the basis of materials technology (thermal and mechanical properties), fuel and oil available in 1968. Compare a 1968 piston with one from the 1980s. Consider how much more is now known about combustion.

 

The old rule of thumb -- that optimum cylinder size for a four stroke petrol engine is 350cc plus or minus 30cc or so -- worked for racing engines and production cars of the period. In 2017 with better metallurgy, alternative materials (plastics, ceramics) and ECU managed fuel and ignition, the old rule of thumb no longer applies. Keith Duckworth, if he was alive, would make a different assessment.

---

Why did Ferrari's engineers choose 12 cylinder engines for the 3 Litre era in F1? 12 by 250cc piston engines consumed more oil and petrol than a Repco or Cosworth -- but delivered a few more revs. Very expensive revs.



#138 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,958 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 04 February 2017 - 19:21

Why did Ferrari's engineers choose 12 cylinder engines for the 3 Litre era in F1? 

 

Not, I suspect, for any dynamic or engineering reason.  Ferrari had become associated with V12s in its road cars and for marketing and emotional reasons wanted to be seen to be using them.  They have been fervently attached to V12s (or at least 12s) for many years only straying away when forced to by the rules.  If they could, the 2017 Ferrari F1 car would be a V12.



#139 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 February 2017 - 20:16

Not, I suspect, for any dynamic or engineering reason.  Ferrari had become associated with V12s in its road cars and for marketing and emotional reasons wanted to be seen to be using them.  They have been fervently attached to V12s (or at least 12s) for many years only straying away when forced to by the rules.  If they could, the 2017 Ferrari F1 car would be a V12.

How many cars did Ferrari sell in 1966? Who paid for racing as trade sponsors? Why didn't they go bust?

 

The 12 cylinder Ferrari association is a 1970s marketing myth to sell expensive road cars. At that time, the most successful Ferrari F1 cars, historically, would have been fours or sixes. In the early 1970s, the V12 Ferraris weren't very good and there hadn't been a 12 cylinder Ferrari single seater for 15+ years.



Advertisement

#140 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 February 2017 - 20:48

Just because they where not successful with V12 does not mean it could have been the superior layout... Ferrari was shite up to schumacher era. + - I believe mansell one some races prior to that with them.



#141 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,958 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 04 February 2017 - 20:54

How many cars did Ferrari sell in 1966? Who paid for racing as trade sponsors? Why didn't they go bust?

 

I didn't know there would be an exam.

 

1.  I don't know, but in 1977 they made about 1,800 so in 1966 it was probably slightly less.  

2.  Pass.  The financing of racing in that era is a bit of a mystery to me.

3.  As an Italian company, they doubtless paid no tax.  And maybe the Mafia sponsored them?

 

What has any of that got to do with 12 cylinders??  :confused:



#142 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 06 February 2017 - 08:00

I think the reason Garlits was initially tempted to try using belts as front tyres on Swamp Rat 30 was because he had managed to fully enclose the front end of the car, the wheels in particular. 30 was a full streamliner with an enclosed cockpit etc so he was trying lots of new things.

 

But, to do so he had to fit tiny wheels, at the time they were using sort of pushbike or moped wheels and tyres on fuellers.

 

So 30's wheels were probably more akin to kart wheels, maybe a little larger, and to fit a tyre on them would foul the enclosed bodywork, so he tried these belts, they were aircraft spec I think from a drone or model plane or something, I will have to check in his book!



#143 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 February 2017 - 10:08

Just because they where not successful with V12 does not mean it could have been the superior layout... Ferrari was shite up to schumacher era. + - I believe mansell one some races prior to that with them.

Much to the contrary, the V10 became rule because Ferrari was bringing the V12 back and Toyota was to enter F1 with another V12



#144 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,160 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 February 2017 - 11:43

Not, I suspect, for any dynamic or engineering reason.  Ferrari had become associated with V12s in its road cars and for marketing and emotional reasons wanted to be seen to be using them.  They have been fervently attached to V12s (or at least 12s) for many years only straying away when forced to by the rules.  If they could, the 2017 Ferrari F1 car would be a V12.

 

If there was no benefit to having 2 more cylinders why did Honda build the V12 for 91/92?



#145 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,958 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 06 February 2017 - 15:27

Because they had not got the benefit of Duckworth's wisdom?    ;)

 

Actually, Honda have been serial offenders in the 'add more cylinders' vein.  Just look at their motorcycles, both road and track, which generally have far more cylinders than it good for them.



#146 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,730 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 February 2017 - 19:08

Much to the contrary, the V10 became rule because Ferrari was bringing the V12 back and Toyota was to enter F1 with another V12

Is that contrary? sounds like it supports my claim that a V12 could be a superior layout..  Better balance/harmonics and with Pneumatic valves you want smaller pistons to fully utilise the rpm potential.



#147 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 07 February 2017 - 08:47

BRG, while you might be right in fact you totally misunderstand Honda and their reasons for going racing, at least in the 80's and 90's.  In the 60's and 70's it was pure indulgence, twin cylinder 50's, 5 cylinder 125, 6 cylinder 250 machines. They were going for revs and proving they could build the things. Jewel like machines that won everything in the smaller classes and eventually triumphed in the big classes too.

 

They funded the ELF program that gave us hub centre steering, single sided swingarms and loads more.

 

In bikes at least they went racing to do things differently. And try and win differently.

 

Their recent bikes have been boringly dull in comparison to early GP machines.

 

They initially entered the top class in the late 70's as it went 2 stroke, but decided that we don't well them so we will build a 4 stroke, it cost millions, never won anything but no doubt gave them excellent info about high revving small cc engines as they decided to make a 500cc oval piston 4 stroke, almost a V8! R&D racing basically.

 

They then built a V3 500 2 stroke, followed by a V4 with the tank under the engine and the exhausts over the top.  Their multi-title wining NSR500 was the only one that ran a single crank for more power, they pioneered EFI on 2 stroke, ushered in big bang.

 

All these things were not necessarily for JUST performance, they were also experiments to find out if they could be used on road bikes. It was how they looked at GP racing.

 

In F1 they were more rational after their early exploits. The current engine is clearly getting better, but the regime has changed massively at Honda. Their bikes are now staggeringly boring and offer nothing different over their rivals, partly due to the rules making it harder to be radical, but also because you have to win to get the budgets secured.



#148 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,742 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 February 2017 - 10:18

Is that contrary? sounds like it supports my claim that a V12 could be a superior layout..  Better balance/harmonics and with Pneumatic valves you want smaller pistons to fully utilise the rpm potential.

That's what i intended to say, just messed up.



#149 vactrac

vactrac
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: February 17

Posted 25 February 2017 - 18:42

The all-time #1 is the Lotus 80.

 

Rather than listening to Mario Andretti and building a much stiffer 79, Lotus decided that the big improvement of ground effect wasn't increased downforce and decreased drag, but increased pitch sensitivity. They built a car that was a lot more pitch sensitive - and ended up with something that didn't just porpoise when anything caused pitch to change, but bent like a banana in the middle and ground down the underbody! 



#150 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 2,736 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 27 February 2017 - 01:13

If there was no benefit to having 2 more cylinders why did Honda build the V12 for 91/92?

Good question. Think in hindsight that was a real mistake, especially given their success with the V10 in 89/90. I recall Senna not being terribly impressed with the Honda V12 in 1991?