I believe that Brabham actually turned their motor (BMW, if I recall correctly) 90 degrees so it laid flat. The whole car looked like a squashed roller skate. I'm pretty sure it was this car............Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Printable View
I believe that Brabham actually turned their motor (BMW, if I recall correctly) 90 degrees so it laid flat. The whole car looked like a squashed roller skate. I'm pretty sure it was this car............Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Which of course, in usual FIA fashion, was subsequently banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
The number of parts said engine has is almost an incidental when it comes to engine costs in Formula One. The real costs come in the research and development of the engine and those costs will be incurred whatever configuration you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
http://www.worldsteelprices.com/
Think about it - if the price of a new car was mainly determined by the price of the ingredients, then a two tonne car shouldn't cost more than about $3000. There's only about $1400 worth of raw materials in a car.
The price of car is not determined by weight. Nobody comes to a dealership and says, give me two tons of car. What kind? The Japanese I suppose.
The complexity of design and manufacturing is more important. That's why I say, 4-cylidenrs is better because it's less complex :)
why should it be a v6, v8, v10 etc. Why not simpl;y a power unit/engine with x power output and x displacement and let variety be the spice of F1 life. SOme of the best GPs were in the 70's when different manufactures had different engine configs. i.e. Ferrari V12's vs Cosworth V8's. Both were 3 litres, the Fezzas were more powerful, but heavier, the Cozzies were more driveable and lighter. The V12 were faster but the v8's got into and out of corners better and the racing was simply better
Correct Doc, unfortunately the BMW engine didn't enjoy being tilted over and it had endless oil pressure problems and the experiment was shelved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Austin
One of the great roadster builders laid the engine down flat like that and won Indianapolis several times. I will have to research it out because I can't remember who it was.
It was Jimmy Bryan in George Salih's Belond AP Exhaust Special, but only once.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/...own-roadsters/
1957 with a tilted Offenhauser engine Sam Hanks won like this too. The engine was tilted 72 degrees off centre - it was the same car that Bryan won in in 1958
http://www.motorabilia.biz/Images/Ne...nner%20002.jpg
Is it less complex?Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
Ctrl-C and Ctrl-X are the friends of modern engine designers.
Ford's 6.8L V10 which found it's way into the Ford Excursion, was a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V version of the 5.4L V8 Modular engine. The bore, stroke and majority of engine bits were the same bits.
The 3.8L 90° V6 which found its way into Chevrolets, Buicks, Holdens &c. again had a bore, stroke and majority of engine bits which were the same as the 5.0L 90° V8.
Apart from extra fluid and electrical lines, the difference in level of complexity is diddly squat.
I'll bet that the 1.0L 3 Cylinder EcoBoost engine in the Fiesta is a Ctrl-X version of the 1.5L 4Cylinder EcoBoost engine but with different cylinder liners and possibly an unbalanced flywheel to avoid the use of balance shafts (I'm only taking a guess here).
The point being that when an engine manufacturer commits to building an engine for F1, the cost of the engine probably wouldn't vary that much what ever the engine config was, because the real costs are incurred in the R&D and the testing. The level of complexity resulting from the particular cylinder config, is probably pocket change in comparison to the costs of bench testing, materials testing &c.