Printable View
I always wondered about a radial-9 with three banks of three or a radial-10 with two banks of five. That'd make the engine shorter than a long V10 which would shift the centre of gravity towards the centre of the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
The 1935 Monaco Trossi... radial-16... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto...Trossi1935.jpg
BRM did build an H-16 and it even won the 1966 US GP??
If anyone could make it work, it would have to be the F1 crew. It would seem the balance would trade issues with the center of gravity, but in F1 who knows that kind of cylinder spacing they might come up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Fully agree that R&D, development, etc would far outweigh the materials aspect though.
That development process is going to involve a lot of fabricating parts and assembling and disassembling engines, so I think there could be some merit in Zako's suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Yep, radial engines, although light weight, have the disadvantage of having to be configured vertical resulting in a high CG.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
but just imagine the noise that would scream out of them
Or a Rotary ?
I think every F1 designer would use a rotary if they regulations would allow. A rotary is the smallest, lightest, biggest-bang-for-buck engine, with fewest moving parts and low CG.
I'm really into these 3cyl turbocharged engines that Ford and Nissan has been testing around. Together with an Electric Engine they could produce a 900HP engine. Refueling would be necessary, but this should be the TOP TECH to be explored by F1 right? Since we have the Super Formula cars (Formula Nippon) using 4cyl turbo (+ spec Dallara chassis) turning faster laps than NON MANUFACTURER teams in Suzuka....
I luv big engines and stuff...the sounding... but I'm more curious about new things like those 3cyl..
Suzuki had 3 cylinder turbocharged/fuel injected engines in the 80's. My girlfriend in college had a 3cyl turbo Geo metro.Quote:
Originally Posted by giu canbera
AND its only got tw wheels !
two wheels mate, but mine is only 3 225 cm pistones :angel: That is onlty 675 for the ventire powerplant :angel:
In case anyone is interested; I do enjoy riding this rig. :dork: :D
And sound absolutely fantastic too.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
While we're at it, the Turbines sounded pretty cool too. They were quiet, but they were so different from everything else.
Agreed Doc. The Lotus 56 indy car and 56B F1 car were incredible. Unfortunately the throttle lag and spooling times made the 56B undrivable, but at speed it was mind blowing to seeQuote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
The throttle lag wasn't so crippling at Indianapolis because they kept the RPMS up. For qualifying in 1968, Granatelli's team ran the idle at 75%. Obviously you could never get away with that when 32 other cars were out there in the race, but for single car qualifying it killed the throttle lag and they snagged the first two spots.
I was at the 1868 race and the turbines were pretty much roundly despised. The car owners did a good job of selling it to the public that the things were evil and so did USAC. When the two remaining turbines fell out of the race literally seconds apart, the place erupted in a way you would have to experience to believe. It was 300,000 people cheering for them to fail. Looking back, that part was a little sad, even if I was one of those cheering.
I think we were all to blind to see the future unfolding before us. At least for oval racing the turbine would have been the way to go, and no doubt competition development would have gotten a grip on the throttle lag. Granatelli said a turbine engine could run ten seasons without a rebuild, so imagine the cost savings there alone. During 1968, they ran two cars for the whole season and the motors never came out of the cars.
Unfortunately no one wanted their equipment obsoleted overnight, in spite of the obvious long term benefits, and the owners, along with USAC, railroaded through rule changes that made the turbines totally uncompetitive. They did not even try to give the turbines a chance to compete on even terms, they just restricted it so much that it went away.
While people always talk about technology, innovation and improving the breed, in a lot of ways all of that ground to a halt with Parnelli's gearbox. That was the moment that rules began to change all over the world to slow the cars and their development down. It was only a few weeks later that Ford swept Lemans for the second time and the FIA was on it's way to ban the big seven litre monsters.
The turbine cars were a watershed moment in motorsports and the evolution of racing technology. Even today I don't believe many people understand how important those cars could have been.
You were at the 1868 race?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
Because I have access to time travel I thought about going to watch it but I pulled the wibbly lever instead of the whatsi lever and ended up in 1768.Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
Some fellow called Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot was leading the steam class when he careened around a corner at a shocking 2½mph and drfited into a wall.
into the wall or through the wall?
Uhhhhh...... not exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
I did get to go to the 68, 69, 73, 74 and 83 races. If for nothing else it is worth going just for the sheer spectacle. Most of the time the racing was pretty good too and the cars were interesting, even after they effectively banned the turbines.
Part of my famly lived in Indianapolis and I would stay at the family funeral home along with about 100 other funeral directors and undertakers from around the country who were guests of the business. I would get off the plane, someone would hand me a beer and it was five days of drinking and going to all the races with a bunch of undertakers letting loose on holiday.
Damm, those people could party.
Through the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
What was the name of that building again... d'Cooladé? OH YEAH!