F-1 V-8 engine placement

[Evan]

I was reading through an edition of Race Engine, and came upon an article about Toyota's 2006 V-8 engine.

One interesting point that was brought up was that because the engine is approx. 120mm shorter, the chassis folks have an interesting situation here; if the wheelbase stays the same, and the engine is still fully stressed (both of which this article seems to imply), they now have some freedom in controlling their weight distribution.

The options would be to split the difference and keep the center of the engine in the same longitudinal location, or move it forward or rearward. This could have a meaningful effect on the inertia of the chassis, especially when looking at what would be ideal for the front and rear with respect to roll center heights. As they use movable ballast in the bottom of the chassis to acheive their desired weight distribution, it would simply be a matter of altering the inertias, as I see it. I was just wondering if anyone else had any speculation on directions the teams may go with this... Move the engine forward and add more rear ballast from the front to more balance the inertias, or perhaps something else?

I'm likely not using the correct language to describe the idea, as I am currently trying to wean myself off of Carrol Smiths 'mass centroid axis' and 'front and rear cg height' way of thinking about these things as outlined in Tune to Win.

Any insights/ideas, Denny, Kevin and everyone?

-Evan Martin
Ryerson FSAE

[Evan]

I was reading through an edition of Race Engine, and came upon an article about Toyota's 2006 V-8 engine.

One interesting point that was brought up was that because the engine is approx. 120mm shorter, the chassis folks have an interesting situation here; if the wheelbase stays the same, and the engine is still fully stressed (both of which this article seems to imply), they now have some freedom in controlling their weight distribution.

The options would be to split the difference and keep the center of the engine in the same longitudinal location, or move it forward or rearward. This could have a meaningful effect on the inertia of the chassis, especially when looking at what would be ideal for the front and rear with respect to roll center heights. As they use movable ballast in the bottom of the chassis to acheive their desired weight distribution, it would simply be a matter of altering the inertias, as I see it. I was just wondering if anyone else had any speculation on directions the teams may go with this... Move the engine forward and add more rear ballast from the front to more balance the inertias, or perhaps something else?

I'm likely not using the correct language to describe the idea, as I am currently trying to wean myself off of Carrol Smiths 'mass centroid axis' and 'front and rear cg height' way of thinking about these things as outlined in Tune to Win.

Any insights/ideas, Denny, Kevin and everyone?

-Evan Martin
Ryerson FSAE

[syoung]

Hehe, I've been reading that section of Tune To Win today!

On a very simplistic level, I'd throw in that they've now got a little more freedom to play with fuel tank size and geometry - the latter for lower CoM. Fuel tank size is obviously important already, but a couple of teams have recently put in some quite long stints at Grands Prix, notably both Renaults at Monaco (shame about the tyres). With the tyre regs due to remain, and qualifying back to 2004 rules (one lap, on race fuel), together with lower fuel consumption from two fewer cylinders (was that a naive statement?), it's probable they've at least looked at the possibility of designing a 300km fuel tank for one or two tracks.

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

the engine is attached to the transmission, aka transaxle, if they want to move the engine up there wheelbase will change too......

[buddy]

I'm not up on the F1 rules, but with 120mm of room to move and a clever transmission arrangement, I'd go for active mass property manipulation. (the weight jacker engine)

buddy

[Eddie Martin]

The proposed 2008 rules look like a step in the right direction.

http://www.formula1.com/news/3175.html

[syoung]

I was just about to post and say the exact opposite!

The major changes:
- Stock ECU and software (removal of driver aids), stock wiring loom and stock sensors and actuators
- Stock brakes (discs, pad, calipers)
- Stock gearbox (mechanically operated by the driver), stock differential, foot-operated mechanical clutch
- Removal of 90% of current downforce, including all flick-up/winglet type devices and bargeboards, with no drag reduction
- Wider car, slick tyres
- Minimum chassis centre-of-mass height!
- Restrictions on materials used in construction
- On-board starter
- No spare car; 30,000km testing limit
- Tyre warmers banned!

There's more engineering than this in Formula Renault! I can't see the major manufacturers wanting to put their name to a home-build kit car for which all the parts are already specified. Speaking of home build, smaller teams will be able to buy part or all of bigger teams' cars.

I'm surprised they've not specified that one team must run in John Player Special colours! The 1970s may have been fun and full of overtaking, but writing the rules to produce a Formula 1 car circa 1979 is not the way forward. Actually, with a particular eye on on-board starters and banned tyre warmers, perhaps the FIA has been looking elsewhere for inspiration? Should we expect a $25,000 limit on the cost of a Formula One car any time soon?

[D J Yates]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eddie Martin:
The proposed 2008 rules look like a step in the right direction.

http://www.formula1.com/news/3175.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What!?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by syoung:
I was just about to post and say the exact opposite! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said.

F1 is supposed to be the pinical of motorsport. That is teams of the best designers and engineers in the world developing the fastest cars in the world and having the best drivers in the world push them to the absolute limit (and beyond, Kimi EuroGP). I appreicate that if the sport is going to survive, the costs need to be reduced and the profile raised. But as far as i can see, the FIA are not helping.

The beauty of F1 is of course the cars, but also the flexibility in the rules. Recently there have been several different concepts: Renaults with awesome start line traction, Williams with the double keel front wing, etc. Take away the flexibilty and impose standards and all you'll do is make things more boring. And just wait until the first FIA standard component failure and the resulting political aftermath.

Take control away from the car and give it back to the driver, fair enough. It's not as if maintaing super human concentration and reactions for 2 hours at 3+ Gs in 30 degrees C temps in full race suits isn't hard enough already.

I'd like to see more dependancy on mechanical grip. However, the teams all have their own wind tunnels now and they're going to use them. They'll end up investing even more resources to regain as much of the lost down force as possible, just like this year. Wider cars will hurt aero and help mechanical grip, but surely the fact that they're wider means less room for overtaking which negates any overtaking-helping aero changes. Anyhow, if the public want wheel to wheel overtaking shouldn't they be watching F3, or a single make formula series. Perhaps instead of changing F1 into something else, they should just promote the other series.

If the teams are forbidden to invest in one technology (brakes, engine, gearbox), they'll find somewhere else to spend money and find performance gains. F1 pioneers many technologies that later make it into everyday road cars, so at least let them develop areas which are actually useful to the rest of the motor industry outside of F1.

Cutting testing will cut costs for now, but i'd bet that by 2008 somebody will be moaning about the costs of super computers and softwear development. Hours of computer processing will replace miles of testing, with only a few miles a year to validate the softwear.

There's only one way to cut costs in F1 (or anything for that matter), cap the budget. Otherwise, the teams will spend whatever they have. If they want to help F1 they should stop all the political bull, stop making changes to spite the top team/s and just let the guys get on with developing cars, racing each other and provide a better F1 entertainment service to the public.

[Evan]

Mike:

Why do you think the wheelbase would necessarily need to change? They could easily lengthen the gearcase (with a minimal addition in weight compared to the engine) to get the wheelbase back. Another option would be to reconfigure the rear suspension, although this would unwantingly alter the weight distribution. They aren't necessarily using the gearcase and suspension designs from this year!

-Evan Martin
Ryerson FSAE

[Denny Trimble]

DJ and Simon,
You make good arguments, and I feel sorry for those poor engineers who will lose their jobs (and for those of us who have / had dreams of working in F1).

But, I think it's a little silly that so much money is being sunk into this entertainment industry.

I also welcome the idea of seeing cars with a little less power, a lot less downforce, and a lot less electronics. It should be much more entertaining. Perhaps less amazing on the technical side, but much better on the excitement of watching starts without launch control, heated passing attempts without traction control, etc. I think it will make the drivers really shine.