26 replies to this topic

[PAD]

With the likely change of the engines down to 2.4 litre V8's, what does this actually mean in terms of the engines capabilities:

• Will the engines still rev to the same speeds (18-19000rpm)?
• Will the power be reduced by 8/10 to about 720bhp?
• How much will the top speeds be reduced?
• Will the fuel consumption be improved by 10/8 ths?

I ask these as technical questions rather than what it will do to the spectacle of F1

[DEVO]

just guessing here, but wouldn't fewer cylinders and less displacement make it easier to rev higher?

[G-One]

As Far as I know, you'll see engines wich will hardly(not) be the same as the current V10's:
The torque-distribution of a V8-90 is by far much better than that of a V10, and due to that the crancksaft may be a decent part lighter... This might result in engines which will rev higher, and consume far less fuel, on an equal power output ratio.
A second difference is the lenght of the cranckshaft, and the engine-body. due to that, the designers will be able to further lighten the cranckshaft and the body, without making a compromis to the stiffnes of the motor... this could result in a much more reliable engine.

The FIA will on the other hand impose standard equipement, to be used by all teams, I heard, and that could mean the end of the performance tweaking we're used to see.

[Nathan]

I can't see why rev's would fall, 2.4 V8 and 3.0 V10 both share the same cylinder size, thus you can carry over the bore/stroke dimensions. Plus dont they vibrate differently? I would assume maybe a V8 might be able to go higher reliably because of that. Seems to me its a cheaper way (development wise) to move towards the mutli-race use engine.

[desmo]

I'd expect that the 8/10ths of a 3.0l V10 engines to be pretty much that, 8/10ths as powerful, 8/10ths the fuel consumption, 8/10ths the weight and size. Same 300cc cylinders, similar S/B, similar rpms.

[hydra]

Yes, but from what I understand, aren't rpms currently limited by crankshaft torsional vibrations? Assuming similitude, going to a V8 would reduce the amplitude of torsional vibrations by 20%, meaning you could probably increase rpms (and thus power) by 10-12% or so for the same stress levels, meaning power would only be down to 88-90% of where it currently is.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by desmo
I'd expect that the 8/10ths of a 3.0l V10 engines to be pretty much that, 8/10ths as powerful, 8/10ths the fuel consumption, 8/10ths the weight and size. Same 300cc cylinders, similar S/B, similar rpms.

I'd agree on all but the 8/10th the weight and size. Most of the engines are 90 degree vees currently... assuming the V8s stay at 90 degrees, the width, indeed the entire cross section will stay the same. Also, the length of an engine consists of more than just 4 or 5 bore center distances... there's also the bank offset (one conrod width), the cam drivetrain gear width and covering, and the end closure walls on the castings. I would guess: width same, height same, length 85%, weight 89%.

There are some pluses regarding RPM and power when going from the V10 to the V8... with better control of valve to piston clearances due to a shorter, stiffer crank, I'll put RPMs at 103% (i.e.~500RPM increase) and power at 81-82% in one engine per weekend guise.

[J. Edlund]

If they are going to V8 engines I would believe that a single plane crankshaft would be the likely choice because of the about 3% higher power output which is possible with it. It also doesn't need any extra counterweights on the crankshaft which means that the crankshaft will be lighter (IRL engines decreased crankshaft weight by about 2 kg when they converted to single plane) compared to a V10 engine but question is how the vibration it's causing will affect the engine and the car?

[cartfan76]

What does it mean?

HUGE initial R&D costs. I don't know what Max Mosely was thinking. I have to go with BMW's thought on how to reduce long run costs in the engine department.....keep the existing engine platmorm. That way you don't have to spend gobs of money developing an effectively new engine.

[indigoid]

I vote for four-rotor Wankels, a la Mazda 787B. Should be reasonably cheap (stuff all moving parts), room for innovation (someone can finally spend enough R&D money to develop decent apex seals ), and the stupidly high revs that we all know and love.

Optionally allow turbos (with FIA-controlled wastegates, of course) for a bit of extra power, though I'm sure modern teams could easily surpass the 787B's alleged 700-ish hp without resorting to forced induction or increased displacement.

This isn't a troll, by the way.

j.

[G-One]

Originally posted by indigoid
I vote for four-rotor Wankels, a la Mazda 787B. Should be reasonably cheap (j.

You must be Joking Think about it: most teams don't have any experience with Wankels, which would mean they all would have to start from scratch, and that alone woould cost you an arm and a leg And your proposal of Turbo-fitting those engines???? Thew would get in notime way over the current power output, and wasn't it intended to decrease that?

[G-One]

Originally posted by Engineguy


I'd agree on all but the 8/10th the weight and size. Most of the engines are 90 degree vees currently... assuming the V8s stay at 90 degrees, the width, indeed the entire cross section will stay the same. Also, the length of an engine consists of more than just 4 or 5 bore center distances... there's also the bank offset (one conrod width), the cam drivetrain gear width and covering, and the end closure walls on the castings. I would guess: width same, height same, length 85%, weight 89%.

There are some pluses regarding RPM and power when going from the V10 to the V8... with better control of valve to piston clearances due to a shorter, stiffer crank, I'll put RPMs at 103% (i.e.~500RPM increase) and power at 81-82% in one engine per weekend guise.

You're not taking into account that due to a symetrical design some designers could opt for an engine with only Three Main bearings? This could in turn give them the possibility to use longer and smaller diameter of the rod bearings. That would reduce the cranckshaft weight by a fair margin.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by G-One
You're not taking into account that due to a symetrical design some designers could opt for an engine with only Three Main bearings? This could in turn give them the possibility to use longer and smaller diameter of the rod bearings. That would reduce the cranckshaft weight by a fair margin.

At 1906 power levels perhaps... not in 2006.

With such a long unsupported length between main bearings wouldn't you have to increase journal diameters substantially? I know some of the 1970s Ferrari flat 12s skipped mains, but that was at a time when journal diameters were huge by today's standards.

[G-One]

Originally posted by Engineguy


At 1906 power levels perhaps... not in 2006.

With such a long unsupported length between main bearings wouldn't you have to increase journal diameters substantially? I know some of the 1970s Ferrari flat 12s skipped mains, but that was at a time when journal diameters were huge by today's standards.

You're probably right, I was just giving it a tought spin... Guess I'm back off
Anyway, I would like to see some "creative engeneering"

[indigoid]

> Think about it: most teams don't have any experience with Wankels
> which would mean they all would have to start from scratch, and that
> alone woould cost you an arm and a leg


Once. Build and rebuild costs should be plenty lower. Don't know what the patent situation is with Wankels though, this may well be a downfall of this idea. I'm sure teams wouldn't appreciate having to pay license fees for their engines. Patents expire after a fixed number of years (exactly how many depends on the field and country they are granted in, but it rarely seems to be more than 25), so I'm thinking that the chances of this being a problem are small.


> And your proposal of Turbo-fitting those engines???? Thew would get
> in notime way over the current power output, and wasn't it intended to
> decrease that?


700hp isn't much for an F1 car I guess it would be better to not have the option at all if you were later going to have to take it away, so let's just forget that idea ever existed

j.

[marion5drsn]

What it means is that the whole thing is F.U.B.A.R. if they do this! M.L. Anderson

[J. Edlund]

I don't think the manufacturers want to go for wankels as they don't have any use for that technology in their road cars... unless you want a spec. series with Mazda engines...

Adding a low boost turbocharger (or two to simplify the setup) can however be a good idea for reduced costs in the long run as when the power levels get too high again the allowed boost pressure can simply be lowered. Making power with boost is usually also a reliable way to increase power, interresting if the engines are going to be used for two events. The technology developed for fast spooling turbochargers could also find it's way into production engines while the low boost means relibility and not much lag.

Why not also use a detuned version for CART?

[desmo]

Wouldn't mandating a small block Chevy V8 make far more sense? You could just put "Ferrari" or "BMW" or "Jaguar" or whatever on the valve covers and 90% of the F1 audience would probably be none the wiser. Back in the day, F5000 cars were reasonably competitive with F1 cars head to head. As long as Bernie assures us it's still "the pinnacle of motorsport" that should be good enough.

[marion5drsn]

J. Edlund; If they are going to V8 engines I would believe that a single plane crankshaft would be the likely choice because of the about 3% higher power output which is possible with it. It also doesn't need any extra counterweights on the crankshaft which means that the crankshaft will be lighter (IRL engines decreased crankshaft weight by about 2 kg when they converted to single plane) compared to a V10 engine but question is how the vibration it's causing will affect the engine and the car?

I believe they will go to a 180-degree crank also, however how and why do you think they will go to non-counterweighted crankshaft, this will just add to the unbalanced effect of the Horizontal Secondary Shake of the 180-degree crankshaft. I am puzzled to say the least. Even the Oakland/Pontiac V-8 of 1930-32 engines were fully counterweighted and it only turned a mere 2137.5 piston feet per minute. Also it you have any pictures of the old Hispano-Suiza made in England by Wolseley which also had eight Primary counterweights, page 520 of the Airplane Encyclopedia by G.D. Angle 1921.
Does anyone know if the old Cosworth V-8s were uncounterweighted? Turning the new V-8s at the piston speeds that would correspond to the V-10s I expect that the engines lasting two weekends is just a dream.
Personally I believe they will be one hundred percent counterweighted (8) for the Primary and if they can come up with a device to counteract the Hor. Sec. Shake they will do so. If vibration is what is holding them back on the V-10s then on the V-8s they are in for some real trouble. The only exception to this that I can think of is that someone comes up with a way of tuning the Primary weights so to counteract one-half of the Secondary. Not likely at these piston speeds. As I haven’t found any mention of this in the various things I’ve read of the O-P engine I don’t know of any use of this, as one vibration, primary, is 360 degrees and the other, secondary, occurs twice each revolution.
M.L. Anderson

[McGuire]

Virtually all the knowledge base of the current V10 engine regime can be transferred directly to the 2.4 V8. The same exact players, only now there are eight instead of ten. The biggest change is the crank. Big deal: the flat plane V8 crankshaft must be one of the most thoroughly understood components in all of motorsports. If anything new can be discovered there, that would be a scoop. Meanwhile the component count is reduced considerably: there will be 20% fewer pistons, connecting rods, ringsets, rod bearings, valves, cam lobes and followers, scavenge pumps etc. and so forth. Eight pistons are cheaper than ten. If you don't believe me, call your supplier. The short-term development cost of the changeover will be more than offset by the considerable long-term savings.

Which competitors will be most adaptable any rules changes in the short term? The ones who best understand what they are already doing (read Ferrari). There is no leveling the playing field in talent and expertise, only in basic costs.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
J. Edlund; If they are going to V8 engines I would believe that a single plane crankshaft would be the likely choice because of the about 3% higher power output which is possible with it. It also doesn't need any extra counterweights on the crankshaft which means that the crankshaft will be lighter (IRL engines decreased crankshaft weight by about 2 kg when they converted to single plane) compared to a V10 engine but question is how the vibration it's causing will affect the engine and the car?

I believe they will go to a 180-degree crank also, however how and why do you think they will go to non-counterweighted crankshaft, this will just add to the unbalanced effect of the Horizontal Secondary Shake of the 180-degree crankshaft. I am puzzled to say the least. Even the Oakland/Pontiac V-8 of 1930-32 engines were fully counterweighted and it only turned a mere 2137.5 piston feet per minute. Also it you have any pictures of the old Hispano-Suiza made in England by Wolseley which also had eight Primary counterweights, page 520 of the Airplane Encyclopedia by G.D. Angle 1921.
Does anyone know if the old Cosworth V-8s were uncounterweighted? Turning the new V-8s at the piston speeds that would correspond to the V-10s I expect that the engines lasting two weekends is just a dream.
Personally I believe they will be one hundred percent counterweighted (8) for the Primary and if they can come up with a device to counteract the Hor. Sec. Shake they will do so. If vibration is what is holding them back on the V-10s then on the V-8s they are in for some real trouble. The only exception to this that I can think of is that someone comes up with a way of tuning the Primary weights so to counteract one-half of the Secondary. Not likely at these piston speeds. As I haven’t found any mention of this in the various things I’ve read of the O-P engine I don’t know of any use of this, as one vibration, primary, is 360 degrees and the other, secondary, occurs twice each revolution.
M.L. Anderson

Well, I found it likely that they will use a crankshaft with eight counterweights in a similar style the crankshafts for the V10 engines have. However, compared to a cross plane crankshaft it doesn't need any extra counterweights for reciprocating mass. Use no counterweights at all is also possible but not likely because of the bending on the crankshaft that will result in.

[G-One]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
If they are going to V8 engines I would believe that a single plane crankshaft would be the likely choice because of the about 3% higher power output which is possible with it. It also doesn't need any extra counterweights on the crankshaft which means that the crankshaft will be lighter (IRL engines decreased crankshaft weight by about 2 kg when they converted to single plane) compared to a V10 engine but question is how the vibration it's causing will affect the engine and the car?

Guess I oversaw this post...
Where do you get the 3% from? It doesn't make much sense, if you ask me, because such a config will result in an engine with an increased vibration. And to counderact that, you'll need MORE counterweights, Maybe even a secondary balancer (Like you can see on some 4CyL line engines). I guess your figure is an experience figure in other motorsports, and that could be caused by working on limits imposed by their regulator. (intake diameters, Revs, ...)
Anyway, What I've seen in Diesel engines on trucks, Manufaturers like Scania and Mercedes always kept the 4 plane config, and in the current generation they decreased the number of counterweights from 8 to 4, while increasing the produced power output and Maximum rev limits (mainly on the Marinsized engines... Other Manufacturers nearly all returned to a 4plane design...
I know you can't port the knowledge from diesel engines, but the general rules still aply:
the unbalance in Dieselengines on lower revs is solved by the greater counterweigt-masses, but on the higher RPM's they are a source of increased secondary inbalance.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by G-One


Guess I oversaw this post...
Where do you get the 3% from? It doesn't make much sense, if you ask me, because such a config will result in an engine with an increased vibration. And to counderact that, you'll need MORE counterweights, Maybe even a secondary balancer (Like you can see on some 4CyL line engines). I guess your figure is an experience figure in other motorsports, and that could be caused by working on limits imposed by their regulator. (intake diameters, Revs, ...)
Anyway, What I've seen in Diesel engines on trucks, Manufaturers like Scania and Mercedes always kept the 4 plane config, and in the current generation they decreased the number of counterweights from 8 to 4, while increasing the produced power output and Maximum rev limits (mainly on the Marinsized engines... Other Manufacturers nearly all returned to a 4plane design...
I know you can't port the knowledge from diesel engines, but the general rules still aply:
the unbalance in Dieselengines on lower revs is solved by the greater counterweigt-masses, but on the higher RPM's they are a source of increased secondary inbalance.

The single plane crankshaft needs less counterweights but cause some vibrations, as with the IRL engines where the crankshaft lost 2 kg when going to a single plane type instead of the dual plane used earlier (this was probably not the reason as much the different sound from these engines was).

The 3% increased power is because of the better tuning whith that type of firing order du to the longer intervals between the exhaust pulses. There was some university that had done research on this, can't remember where I read it, could have been "race engine technology". It was however not mentioned if this increase was just due to the better tuning or also from that a single plane crankshaft should be able to use higher revs with its lighter crankshaft.

Single plane crankshafts have usually been used in short stroke high revving applications while dual plane crankshafts are usually found in longer stroke lower revving engines. From what I understand the older F1 V8 engines used the single plane crankshafts.

[Wuzak]

The Cosworth certainly used a flat plane crank.

As for why a flat plane crank produces mor power, isn't simply a case that the exhausts can be a better design, without requiring crossovers, etc?

Check out the exhausts in a GT40. The pipes crossover at the rear of the engine, above the transaxle.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Wuzak
The Cosworth certainly used a flat plane crank.

As for why a flat plane crank produces mor power, isn't simply a case that the exhausts can be a better design, without requiring crossovers, etc?

Check out the exhausts in a GT40. The pipes crossover at the rear of the engine, above the transaxle.

Quite right. With a 90 degree aka two-plane or cruciform crank, the center two cylinders on one bank must be crossed over and paired with the outside two cylinders on the opposite bank to achieve optimal exhaust scavenging. So the Ford GTs and the Indy DOHC V8s, which used 90 degree cranks, employed the "basket of snakes" exhaust system (marvels of workmanship and cool to look at if you ask me). With a single plane crank, the engine becomes essentially two inline fours on a common crank and each bank can independently scavenge itself.

The flat crank layout also allows a somewhat lighter, stiffer crankshaft with less counterweighting. The disdavantage of course is the "horizontal secondary shake" of song and story. Again, with a flat crank you have essentially two inline fours on a common crankshaft. The assemblage has perfect primary balance, but their total vertical reciprocating force is the vector sum of that of the two fours, disposed at right angles to the centerline of the vee or parallel to the ground. That is, the engine is trying to shuffle sideways in the chassis left-right-left in reaction to its reciprocating forces. (The 90 degree crank cancels this by twisting two crankpins 90 degrees to oppose half the cylinders to the force, introducing a primary imbalance which can be canceled with the aforementioned counterweights.) With the Cosworth there were development problems due to the vibration periods introduced by the flat crank, mainly in the camshaft gear drives...which were successfully conquered, needless to say , as the thing won races for decades. Better gear materials etc., and eventually they installed a spring damper in one of the drive gears. It must still be considered the most successful racing engine ever. Someone in the nostalgia forum can probably tell us how many F1, CART, F3000 etc. races and championships it won.

[Wuzak]

And the odd sportscar race, including at least one Le Mans 24 Hours.

155 wins in F1, though......

[marion5drsn]

The book Classic,"RACING ENGINES", by Karl Ludvigsen page 176 column one states;

Two compound- i.e. back to back-gears were included in the train at the front that drove the camshafts. In the DTV’s early years this experienced various failures that led to intensive development of every aspect of the cams and gears, including making the latter of vacuum-remelted steel.
The final solution consisted, introduced in 1971, was to introduce into the hub of the second compound gear 12 miniature torsion bars which were able to absorb the energy spikes that were troubling the gears.

There is no mention of whether the engine ever had full primary counter weighting. Also the accompanying picture is not clear enough to make a good statement about that.

I'm curious about the cost of that gear. Even Boston antibacklash gears are exensive.

M.L. Anderson