V6 Or V8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfield5

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

---

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.

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

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.


Fully agree that R&D, development, etc would far outweigh the materials aspect though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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

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, ....

---

Yep, radial engines, although light weight, have the disadvantage of having to be configured vertical resulting in a high CG.

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giu canbera

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.

AND its only got tw wheels !