![Photo](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/019e3df7d5692985d4c727c509dfc11e?s=100&d=https%3A%2F%2Fbb2.autosport.com%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_images%2FTheo%2Fprofile%2Fdefault_large.png)
Physical size of 2k Mercedes engine
#1
Posted 04 February 2000 - 03:11
Advertisement
#2
Posted 04 February 2000 - 07:12
#3
Posted 04 February 2000 - 18:27
#4
Posted 04 February 2000 - 21:25
I wonder if after the turbo engines, which needed a lot of cooling, were banned, there may have been a carry-over period when the normally aspirated engines carried more cooling capacity than they needed, and that this has now been whittled away?
Of course once a designer has seen the possibility of weight and size gains in this area, he may continue to look for more savings by new technology. So I wonder if there are some new tricks being devised for cooling systems instead of the very traditional pressurised water system? Other than Gordon Murray’s abortive surface radiator experiment on the Brabham BT46, I cannot recall any innovations in this area at all, but perhaps some of you can?
More generally, there is a lot of hype around in new car/engine launches. Typically, everyone claims 20% less weight or size or rigidity etc. If all the cumulative improvements were to be analysed over several years, you might find negative figures! These are PR exercises, to gain publicity and to confuse rivals, not proper engineering briefings. So I suggest that a pinch of salt (that’s 12% less salt than last year of course!) is advisable.
------------------
BRG
#5
Posted 04 February 2000 - 22:15
I know that they pressurizes the cooling system to get higher temps but better cooling.
The air intakes (sidepods) have been getting smaller and smaller and i know they use somekinds of shutters so they can regulate the air going through the cooling system on different tracks.
I also read that some team had reduced moving parts in the motor. I was kind of interested in getting more info on that.
#6
Posted 06 February 2000 - 13:46
#7
Posted 08 February 2000 - 01:40
#8
Posted 08 February 2000 - 03:03
This sounds like a sound idea for shortening the engine block. Any ofset would be hiden by the exhaust headers. Honda may of used this on their three cylinder F1 bike engine as the center cylinder was ofset quite a bit from the out side cylinders.
Art
#9
Posted 08 February 2000 - 07:44
But then, work out the savings at the bottom of the bores - close to the crank, how much room can really be saved here?
#10
Posted 08 February 2000 - 07:59
If Ilmor have done this it could account for the strange sound of the engine, if they've had to compromise one of the sets of cylinders so the conrod is not straight at TDC, this would effectively change the timing (reletive to the other bank of cylinders) causing a big bang effect where the cylinders do not fire at uniform time periods.
Indeed even if they bores are not staggered, Ilmor may have just introduced a big bang firing order (by running the crank at wierd angles) to optimise traction out of the bends, much like they do in Motorcycle GP racing.
#11
Posted 08 February 2000 - 15:53
#12
Posted 08 February 2000 - 16:10
[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 02-08-2000).]
#13
Posted 08 February 2000 - 17:52
#14
Posted 08 February 2000 - 21:56
[This message has been edited by Christiaan (edited 02-08-2000).]
#15
Posted 09 February 2000 - 00:36
I think Ray Bell is right that the bottom of the cylinder bores would prevent shortening of the block with off set cylinders. I think we are all expecting to see a micro minature engine when we are really talking about 1/2 inch in length and width. Which can be done with thinner castings.
Art
#16
Posted 09 February 2000 - 02:44
Art, you can only got so thin with castings before lack of strutual rigidity becomes a problem, I sure all F1 engines are on the limit in that area already. The staggered block would be stronger by nature of its shape thus allowing thinner castings.
#17
Posted 09 February 2000 - 04:21
#18
Posted 09 February 2000 - 04:37
If you bring inlet valves in from opposite angles do we not do the same with the exhaust valve angles also? Which would give you intake and exhaust ports on both sides of the cylinder head? And as for thinner castings it would depend on what alloy is used and how the core support is set up.
Art
#19
Posted 09 February 2000 - 07:38
There are other prospects, like a W engine, but these will necessarily get into the airstream at the sides.
The odd-sized cylinders proposition sounds interesting. I once approached Phil Irving with some ideas I had, and admittedly he was pretty old at the time, but his rebuff was borne of a man with much experience. I think you would find the same of any engine designer. You'd have to build it yourself to prove it and then be ready for the world to copy!
Advertisement
#20
Posted 09 February 2000 - 10:28
you mentioned a W engine which is what I was thinking as I was reading along.
VW's narrow angle V-6 is essentially what your discussing. It has a 15 degree offset between two banks of 3 so that they can share a cylinder head.
Their more publicized W-12 was two narrow angle 6's joined at the crank. If you made that two v-5's you'd have the required 'stagered cylinder V-10'. VW had some impressive horsepower stats from that engine and I've no doubt that if an experienced F1 team was able to work with the basic design, they could produce a very formidable powerplant.
#21
Posted 09 February 2000 - 12:47
I, of course, don't know what I'm talking about, so I expect there are many reasons why this would not work.
Come to think of it, I had an old knackered BMW once that had oval bores - problem was the pistons were still round. It certainly did nothing for performance (and oil consumption)!
#22
Posted 09 February 2000 - 13:05
(pesky regulations always getting in the way
![:)](https://bb2.autosport.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
#23
Posted 09 February 2000 - 19:49
One cam high up operating a splayed head (i.e. offset inlet and exhaust like a twin cam) valve design with BOTH banks operating of the one cam. Alternatively I could be delusional as I cannot relocate the book, which I own.
A sketch or cut away would be useful, if anyone could help.
#24
Posted 09 February 2000 - 08:31
#25
Posted 10 February 2000 - 01:58
The oval piston Honda was a bike engine. With something like 10 valves per cylinder?? and created a real problem with designing piston rings. It used 2 rods per piston and was raced a few times. The idea was to eliminate the space between cylinders and reduce engine size. I think they produced a limited edition of this bike at about $75,000.00 I hope I am correct on this.
Art
#26
Posted 10 February 2000 - 03:39
![Posted Image](https://www.california-designs.com/images/NR%20Engine.jpg)
#27
Posted 10 February 2000 - 04:25
Tnx for the nice photo I wasn't sure about the number of valves but there was a whole bunch in there. Can you find a picture of the VW W12 I can't find one any where?
Art
#28
Posted 10 February 2000 - 04:59
Are you sure the GP engine was a v4? I only saw one picture of the engine a sneak shot in the back of the Honda Truck. And it doesn't seem like the engine was any where near this big? But that was many years ago.
Art
#29
Posted 11 February 2000 - 22:25