21 replies to this topic

[VAR1016]

Those who saw my thread about the Lancia D50 will see that I have been put right - the D50 has a 90 degree crankshaft. I have written to Classic and Sportscar to put THEM right!

So what was the first V8 with a flat-plane crankshaft? I know that BRM introduced this in (I think 1963) so that the famous stack pipes were replaced by manifolds.

I would also like to know why it took so long to adopt when it appears to be the correct solution for high-performance V8s. Perhaps the balance problems appear only when the engine is large and there is substantial reciprocating mass?

VAR1016

[Wolf]

VAR1016- try running the search with flat-plane as keyword, I recall it being discussed on few occassions...

Maybe, the revs have more to do with those vibrations, since nasty harmonics could've appeared and made mess of things...

[marion5drsn]

The very first known 180 degree crankshaft for V-8s were the 1909 de Dion-Bouton which used it on the automobile and aircraft engines. After this Hispano-Suiza and Cadillac (1914) used it on their engines until 1923 when Cadillac developed the 90 degree crank for smoothness. De Dion dropped V-8s after 1923. Hisso dropped V-8 aircraft engines after 1923. !80 degree cranks were not developed for racing they were used because the manufacturers didn't know any better.
Rolls-Royce used a V-8 in their Legalimit but it was a failure and too little is known about it.

Go to for firing Pattern of Lancia;

http://home.earthlin...RINGPATTERN.JPG

Secondary Shake Pattern below;

http://home.earthlin...HAKEPATTERN.JPG


M.L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Wolf
VAR1016- try running the search with flat-plane as keyword, I recall it being discussed on few occassions...

Maybe, the revs have more to do with those vibrations, since nasty harmonics could've appeared and made mess of things...

The current Ferrari production engines use 180 degree crankshafts (the V8s that is!!).

Now these run to about 8500 and they are of 3.6 litres capacity.

The DFVs etc. ran up to 15000 but what was the V angle? - and if not 90 degrees, were the cranks staggered a la Lancia Lambda, Dilambda, Astura, Fulvia, etc?


It seems that 180 degrees is the answer all the same!

VAR1016

[Henri Greuter]

For sure one of the earliest 180 degree crankshaft V8's must be the Novi V8, (2 liter supercharged) introduced in 1941 and raced till 1965. Definitely not the first but one of the earlier ones.

Lotus buffs will be able to confirm when Coventry Climax introduced 180 cranks for the 1.5 liter V8's.


Henri Greuter

[Ray Bell]

Lotus buffs would, indeed... with Clark on board, Lotus got the developments first.

Two threads worth consulting on this subject...

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=11748

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=35021

Marion 5drsn's comments in the first are particularly interesting.

[Henri Greuter]

I wrote:

Henri Greuter

For sure one of the earliest 180 degree crankshaft V8's must be the Novi V8, (2 liter supercharged) introduced in 1941 and raced till 1965. Definitely not the first but one of the earlier ones.


-----

Oops....

Make that 3 liter OK?
Good.
Yep, it was indeed comparable with the 1938 & 1939 GP engines. Performance wise too if it comes to power figures.


Interestingly, the engine was built by the Offenhauser Engineering Co who had no experience with V8 raing engines. It is told that they selected a 180 crank while they knew how to make those (Offy's) and then tried to make the Novi work with one by experimenting with all kind of firing orders. I never got hold of the firing order on the Novi so I can't help on that.


Henri Greuter

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Lotus buffs would, indeed... with Clark on board, Lotus got the developments first.

I believe the first Climax flat crank engine was fitted to Gurney's Brabham at the 1963 Dutch GP. It was recognisable by the low-level, non-cross-over exhausts. It was originally developed for Ferguson Research who would have had difficulty fitting the original engine into the front of their car.

The first BRM flat-crank engine appeared in early 1963. It had nothing to do with the abandonment of the vertical exhausts, which happened at Spa in 1962.

[marion5drsn]

The first 180 degree crankshaft for a V-8 was the DeDion-Bouton 30 years before the NOVI. All four
cylinder inline or flat pancake engines have 180 degree cranks. It is my belief that the NOVI was a failure beause of the use of a 180 degree crankshaft and the Secondary Shake (vibration) due to this type of crankshaft. Also the 3 main bearing cranks didn't help either. I don't know if the driveshafts were Constant Angular Velocity Universal Joints or not but that the use Nonconstant Angular Velocity Universal Joints would have made the vibration even worse.


Yours, M.L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
The first 180 degree crankshaft for a V-8 was the DeDion-Bouton 30 years before the NOVI. All four
cylinder inline or flat panake engines have 180 degree cranks. It is my belief that the NOVI was a failure beause of the use of a 180 degree crankshaft and the Secondary Shake (vibration) due to this type of crankshaft. Also the 3 main bearing cranks didn't help either. I don't know it the driveshafts were Constant Angular Velocity Universal Joints or not but that the use Nonconstant Angular Velocity Universal Joints would have made the vibration even worse. Yours, M.L. Anderson

Thanks for more fascinating information!

Do you have a view on the offset crankshafts introduced by Lancia on his narrow-angle V egines?

For example a 1600 Fulvia has a V-angle of 11 degrees and 20 minutes. The crankpins are offset at double the angle of the V - i.e. 22 deg. 40'. The engine is I believe effectively a staggered in-line four. But I am curious to know the effect on secondary balance of this arrangement. The rally cars use to run at 8000 rpm.

VAR1016

[marion5drsn]

VAR1016 Go back to my other post as I have added some pictures of the Secondary Shake and also of the Firing Patterns of the Lancia V-8 D-50s. 90 degree crankshafts. M.L Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
VAR1016 Go back to my other post as I have added some pictures of the Secondary Shake and also of the Firing Patterns of the Lancia V-8 D-50s. 90 degree crankshafts. M.L Anderson

Many thanks

VAR1016

[VAR1016]

Just an observation about early V-8s.

Mention has been made of early V-8s such as the De Dion-Bouton and the Hispano-Suiza aero engine and the Cadillac.

I would like to add acouple to this catalogue, although I have no idea of their crank geometry.

One of the earliest must have been the Rolls-Royce "Legalimit" car which was governed so as not to exceed 20 mph the limit in (forward-thinking) England in those days. The cars were built about 1905. Around that time there was an enormous Darracq racing car rated at 200 hp that had a colossal V8 - it was featured in Motorsport a while ago.

And was Barney Oldfield's Ford 999 a V8?

VAR1016

[marion5drsn]

I haven’t any opinion on the Lancia engine of which you write, as I know little or nothing about it. My opinions of engines are usually based on their ability to use Double OverHead Camshafts in the proper fashion. This means that the cylinders must be inline and also the valves as I am very much against rocker arms and any other devices that add to the mass actuated by the camshaft lobes.
Hispano-Suiza in about 1910 or there abouts called their method of actuating the valves when translated means “Direct Attack (Push)”. In other words no extraneous mass between the Camshaft lobe and the valve stem end. If you have a cutaway of a Toyota OverHead Camshaft engine you will get a good picture of what I mean. This method of actuating the valves began with the Ballot or Peugeot I believe about 1912 or 1913. This engine was designed by E. Henry (Henri) (msp) the Swiss engineer who was a fellow engineer with M. Birkigt. Birkigt was the engineer who made the Swiss part of Hispano-Suiza.
As to the reason that engines are designed out of balance I just don’t have enough information about this engine to state whether or not it is out of balance. The Secondary Shake is due to the engine not having two of the pistons in direct position with one another. Whether or not this engine has achieved this I can’t say. Yours, M. L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
I haven’t any opinion on the Lancia engine of which you write, as I know little or nothing about it. My opinions of engines are usually based on their ability to use Double OverHead Camshafts in the proper fashion. This means that the cylinders must be inline and also the valves as I am very much against rocker arms and any other devices that add to the mass actuated by the camshaft lobes.
Hispano-Suiza in about 1910 or there abouts called their method of actuating the valves when translated means “Direct Attack (Push)”. In other words no extraneous mass between the Camshaft lobe and the valve stem end. If you have a cutaway of a Toyota OverHead Camshaft engine you will get a good picture of what I mean. This method of actuating the valves began with the Ballot or Peugeot I believe about 1912 or 1913. This engine was designed by E. Henry (Henri) (msp) the Swiss engineer who was a fellow engineer with M. Birkigt. Birkigt was the engineer who made the Swiss part of Hispano-Suiza.
As to the reason that engines are designed out of balance I just don’t have enough information about this engine to state whether or not it is out of balance. The Secondary Shake is due to the engine not having two of the pistons in direct position with one another. Whether of not this engine has achieved this I can’t say. Yours, M. L. Anderson

Thanks. However you malign the Fulvia engine! The engine is a true twin cam although it does use rocker arms. However the effective mass is low: This is demonstrably true - simply examine the valve springs: they are extremely light and easy to fit, yet in 20 years, I have never experienced valve crash even at very high revs (naughty high revs!) I am no engineer, but I suspect that there is little to choose between the Fulvia's rockers and say the rather heavy buckets and shims found on Lampredi's FIAT twin-cam which of course, like with all twin-cams are a vertical dead weight. About 60% of the mass of the Fulvia's rocker arm is supported by and pivots on the shaft.

VAR1016

[marion5drsn]

VAR10166, I have been thinking of your mention of offset crankshafts and my view of this design and its effect on the engine. Being busy on other projects I haven’t been able to answer your question. If the question that you put to me is of a design, which was used on old Cadillac four cylinders and old engines such as the Beardmore where it is called De Saxe, I have no real opinion as it was so little used. These engines were before 1920 and are little known except for people as myself. The only drawing I have made of them is to try to ascertain whether they need to have an offset piston pin to accomplish what was intended of them. I have therefore decided that both must be done in concert or not at all. Offset piston pins were used on some American V-8s as the Chevrolet but didn’t seem to be a very successful element of design and I believe they were dropped. The sketches I made were what I used to determine that both were needed or not at all. If you have a copy of an old book Jane’s World War I Aircraft you will find a mention of the Beardmore and the de Saxe offset.
What book do you recommend about the Lancia engine? Yours M.L. Anderson

[desmo]

I am told that current F1 engines typically run pivoting finger followers, and this results in reduced reciprocating valvetrain mass. For clarity's sake I shall leave BMW's clockwork VVL variable pivot and what I believe is Cosworth's likely reversion to SOHC in their current engines out of the discussion however!

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
VAR10166, I have been thinking of your mention of offset crankshafts and my view of this design and its effect on the engine. Being busy on other projects I haven’t been able to answer your question. If the question that you put to me is of a design, which was used on old Cadillac four cylinders and old engines such as the Beardmore where it is called De Saxe, I have no real opinion as it was so little used. These engines were before 1920 and are little known except for people as myself. The only drawing I have made of them is to try to ascertain whether they need to have and offset piston pin to accomplish what was intended of them. I have therefore decided that both must be done in concert or not at all. Offset piston pins were used on some American V-8s as the Chevrolet but didn’t seem to be a very successful element of design and I believe they were dropped. The sketches I made were what I used to determine that both were needed or not at all. If you have a copy of and old book Jane’s World War I Aircraft you will find a mention of the Beardmore and the de Saxe offset. This offset is possible if the offset is properly designed on any Vee style engine.

What book do you recommend about the Lancia engine? Yours M.L. Anderson

I vaguely recall reading about the De-SAXE layout in an old book years ago. I understood that the idea was to avoid a vertical "blow" onto the crank-pin at TDC. If I remember correctly, the Lancia Lambda had an offset little end and also the theoretical meeting point of the axes of the con-rods was some way below the CL of the crankshaft.

Of course the offset in the narrow-angle Vee-engines that Lancia produced was a consequence of the staggered in-line layout with the aim of attaining even firing strokes. Indeed Jano adopted the same idea in the 65-degree Ferrari V-6 DINO engine.

There was an Autocar description of the Fulvia (1963) engine where the design was discussed. this was reprinted in a book called "La Lancia" a collection of road tests and articles back to before the first world war. Sadly I no longer have a copy - Evo One does though! I'll forward this link to him in case he can help.

The crankshafts are fully counterweighted in the Fulvias (they were not in the Aprilia engines) and the Autocar article stated that these were balanced on a GISHOLT Harmonic balancing machine whatever that may be! Obviously an offset crank could not be balanced statically, there being some sort of "factor" involved.

I have no doubt that somewhere the design concepts of Lancia's fascinating narrow angle Vee engines must have been discussed, but I have never seen any technical book describing or analysing them fully.

As an aside, last week I saw the Lancia that cmae sixth in the 1934 Mille Miglia. It was a 1920s Lambda fitted with an early thirties ASTURA engine. This was an incredibly narrow angle V-8 - quite extraordinary to see. Aparently that car is good for about 100mph!

Thanks for taking the time to think about this - much appreciated.

VAR1016

[Kaha]

The biggest disadvanage of the narrow angle V designs was not the small rocker arms from the DOHC or SOHC to the valves.

Forunately the advantages of the small angle V was bigger than the disadvantages, making the Fulvia engine (as well as the other little Lancia engines) small gems.

Unfortunately there is really no good book that focus on the technical side of Lancia cars. There are some general interest books about Lancia of varying quality. There are also some books focusing on the Fulvia, but not that much about the technical side.

(VAR1016, I guess from your nick that that you are really a Fulvia fan ;) )

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Kaha
The biggest disadvanage of the narrow angle V designs was not the small rocker arms from the DOHC or SOHC to the valves.

Forunately the advantages of the small angle V was bigger than the disadvantages, making the Fulvia engine (as well as the other little Lancia engines) small gems.

Unfortunately there is really no good book that focus on the technical side of Lancia cars. There are some general interest books about Lancia of varying quality. There are also some books focusing on the Fulvia, but not that much about the technical side.

(VAR1016, I guess from your nick that that you are really a Fulvia fan ;) )

Got it it one KAHA! - even my spanners are engraved "1016"! I have had six Fulvias over the past 20 years; the present one is a hot-rod of sorts and is unique in being fitted with Lucas mechanical fuel-injection (Lancia should have done this instead of messing about with Kugelfischer).

You are quite right about the lack of decent books; MArion Anderson asked the question, but I regret I cannot suggest anything - perhaps in Italy? I would dearly love to see a proper engineering critique of the narrow Vee concept - especially as developed for the Fulvia, with counterbalanced crankshaft. If I had the money, the engine would however, be very different but that's another story!

On the subject of balance etc., it has frequently been observed how much the smaller engines (particularly the 1200s) are so much smoother than the 1600 version.

best of luck

VAR1016

[Kaha]

Aha, is it THAT Fulvia?? The insane ;) Integrale chaser??

Did you compensate for the different length in the intake ports for the two "cylinder banks"?
(Which IMO is the biggest drawback of the narrow-V concept, especially if it shall be used as a race-engine)

It is a bit odd that Lancia themselfs did not try to modify the Fulvia engine to suit racing. OK they were occupied by the rally program, and all thier racing efforts were rather low budget (both the Fulvia Zagato and the F&M specials), but why didn't they make a more serious try?

Regarding the smoothnes of the different size Fulvia engines, ther was an article som numbers ago in Viva Lancia about someone who tried to enlarge his Fulvia 1300, and got into some problems with the V-angle and length of the cylinder-liners (and probably also the length of the pistons), can this be the source for the less smothness of the bigger engines.
(Myself, I have only had 1300 Fulvias, so I have nothing to compare with)

Best Regards

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Kaha
Aha, is it THAT Fulvia?? The insane ;) Integrale chaser??

Did you compensate for the different length in the intake ports for the two "cylinder banks"?
(Which IMO is the biggest drawback of the narrow-V concept, especially if it shall be used as a race-engine)

It is a bit odd that Lancia themselfs did not try to modify the Fulvia engine to suit racing. OK they were occupied by the rally program, and all thier racing efforts were rather low budget (both the Fulvia Zagato and the F&M specials), but why didn't they make a more serious try?

Regarding the smoothnes of the different size Fulvia engines, ther was an article som numbers ago in Viva Lancia about someone who tried to enlarge his Fulvia 1300, and got into some problems with the V-angle and length of the cylinder-liners (and probably also the length of the pistons), can this be the source for the less smothness of the bigger engines.
(Myself, I have only had 1300 Fulvias, so I have nothing to compare with)

Best Regards

Yep, that's right - the blue-and-yellow one.

Yes I have different length intake trumpets and the exhaust manifold is similarly compensated. Lancia did use different length trumpets too occasionally although it is arguable that retaining the difference would increase the torque spread.

I have seen a blurred picture of a works injection engine using individual slide throttles - again at differing distances from the head - I would love to see that engine.

The other car you mention is probably my friend's. We spent a long time on it: 1300 block and 1600 pistons, Kugelfischer injection; the problem is that one does not know/cannot depend on the position of the cylinders in the casting. if they were where they were supposed to be the scheme would work. You have more piston area for a given capacity and with the shorter stroke, better secondary balance (although I woud have to defer to Marion Anderson on that one)

As for Lancia, well I suppose that they felt that the egine was old and also that the car is simply too heavy. I have all the solutions for this worked out - I just need the lottery win.

Bore & stroke: 85 x 70 = 1581CC = 7% more piston area. New crankcase, 4-bolt centre main, dry sump, titanium rods, vertical mounting in the chassis instead of 45 degrees = proper inlet arrangements and a proper exhaust manifold (I have mocked this up). Head bolts moved, ports bored and sleeved; probably 190+HP @ 7750! 6-speed dog-clutch 'box, LSD, aluminium hubs, steering rack composiite leaf springs. And still a Fulvia.

Still dreaming

PdeRL