Renault to abandon wide-angle engine

Inigo Montoya · 4 Sep 2002, 17:53 (Ref:373164)

Gazzetta dello Sport is reporting that Renault will abandon their "revolutionary" wide-angle engine in favour of a 90 degree engine in 2003. Isn't this giving up a bit early?

**Bononi** · 4 Sep 2002, 18:09 (Ref:373178)

Yes, too early !

They look promising in the first races, and still are not so bad for a first year effort.

BootsOntheSide · 4 Sep 2002, 19:22 (Ref:373227)

I think they should keep it up, after all the effort with it. Compared to the 2001 early-season showing, the engine obviously ahs potential through being so light.

Damon · 4 Sep 2002, 19:32 (Ref:373238)

I agree this is giving up way too early, the Renaults have been very competative considering how revolutioary they have been.

on a related note it will be interesting to see at monza whether a) a ton of honda engines blow up again or b) jordan and BAR are pig slow as honda go for reliablity. I don't know what they did at spa but it was abviously very wrong.

neilap · 4 Sep 2002, 19:44 (Ref:373244)

Maybe Renault was contemplating this for awhile now. I would guess that the Grenades that Honda brought to the show was the last straw. The motor was obviously weaker than those ahead of them. After two years of it not gaining too much power maybe that is the right choice. What they need to avoid though is a new design that will make them look more like BAR has for the past couple of years.

Guisbro Rod H · 4 Sep 2002, 20:05 (Ref:373255)

I like the idea of a wide angle engine lowering the centre of gravity and thereby raising mechanical grip.

I wonder if their problem stems from the fact that the angle they chose MIGHT give them reduced power because they cannot balance the exaust system to maximise engine power.

Has any one got any ideas?

Inigo Montoya · 4 Sep 2002, 20:13 (Ref:373261)

According to the article, they are very concerned about the lack of reliability - given the future switch to a one engine weekend. The problem lies in the excessive vibration produced by the engine, and the fact that it needs a larger than usual diameter clutch. Even the bodywork had to be reinforced due to the excessive vibrations.

It is claimed that a 90 degree V10 has been secretly in development for quite some time now.

PoweredByHonda · 4 Sep 2002, 20:59 (Ref:373292)

This seems logical, as with the introduction of the one engine rule in 2004, there would be no way that Renault could make the 111 degree engine work efficiently over the whole weekend. This way, they've got next year to test out and iron out the bugs in the 90 degree engine before 2004.

Although I must say, I'm not a fan of the one engine rule at all. Supposedly it saves costs, but it's gonna do the exact opposite as manufacturers literally have to redesign engines from scratch so they get the reliability. That'll cost more. But again, Mosley's rule changes have always been bull****.

Quote:

Originally posted by Damon
on a related note it will be interesting to see at monza whether a) a ton of honda engines blow up again or b) jordan and BAR are pig slow as honda go for reliablity. I don't know what they did at spa but it was abviously very wrong.

I'd think that more motors will blow as I can't see Honda going for reliability at this stage of the season. They're working towards next year and rapid development. So if more engines explode, I guess that's the price to pay for a better engine next year. (Please dear god let there be a better engine next year...)

Valve Bounce · 4 Sep 2002, 23:15 (Ref:373388)

I think the 111 degree engine has an inherent imbalance which may not only cause unreliability, but possible difficulties in engine management when extracting the maximum "safe" power. {This is just my thought for the day

}, and I am sure some of the technical guys will disprove this. BUT, many of us have previously questioned the wisdom of a 111 degree engine compared with the 90 degree which in engineering and mathematical terms can be balanced. Nevertheless, when one finds a better solution to a problem, it is sometimes futile to cling to a previous technically imperfect concept.

Valve

Inigo Montoya · 4 Sep 2002, 23:37 (Ref:373398)

Just fyi, I believe its actually a 102 degree engine.

Valve Bounce · 4 Sep 2002, 23:48 (Ref:373405)

I don't have my Engineering handbook with me any longer. I cannot tell whether a 102 degree has inherent instabilities, but at a guess, I'd say yes to at least secondary imbalance. How this compares to the imbalance of a 111 degree is anybody's guess.

Valve

neilap · 5 Sep 2002, 00:44 (Ref:373449)

Quote:

Originally posted by PoweredByHonda
I'd think that more motors will blow as I can't see Honda going for reliability at this stage of the season. They're working towards next year and rapid development. So if more engines explode, I guess that's the price to pay for a better engine next year. (Please dear god let there be a better engine next year...)

I agree with you on that point. Honda must be really pushing development of next years motor and they can use the races as a live test bed. They still have to be a bit careful though because they still need to finish races. Otmar Szafnauer, Vice President Honda Racing Development said there would be three more steps made before the end of the season. The next three races should be interesting to say the least. Please let the performances for the rest of the year give us hope for next year!!

Jukebox · 5 Sep 2002, 01:09 (Ref:373466)

It's about time they abandon the 111 degrees V spread engine, although they have been able to produce a rather respectable innovation but because of the wide spread they have to reduce the hp as to have reliability.

Valve Bounce · 5 Sep 2002, 03:49 (Ref:373514)

I wonder why nobody wants to try a flat 10 engine. Surely the CG would be lower then.

Valve

alfasud · 5 Sep 2002, 05:37 (Ref:373524)

My understanding is that for 4-stroke balance you divide 720 degrees by the number of cylinders.
720/12=60 degrees, 720/8=90 degrees and 720/10=72 degrees.

It's possible to vary these a little and some other multiple of 360/n (where n is the number of cylinders) may also work, e.g. 60 degree V6, 90 degree V12, etc. The problem with 180 degrees is a wider engine with exhaust plumbing hanging down underneath - not only an aerodynamic issue but if you have to raise the crankshaft to clear the exhaust, then you raise the centre to gravity, so what's the point?

I'm sure that Racecar Engineering suggested a 110 deg. V10 configuration where the exhaust ran in the centre of the V and the induction ran between the inlet and exhaust cam. I'm not sure if anyone is actually working on this configuration of not. Renault seem to use conventional F1 induction and exhaust.

Ferrari ran a 120 degree V6 in the early 1960's so wide angle V's are nothing new. I'm not sure why a 144 degrees V10 wouldn't work, but maybe the problem isn't just balance - maybe the wider engine is simply less rigid than the narrower 72-90 degree unit.

neilap · 5 Sep 2002, 06:36 (Ref:373537)

It is not legal to run a flat 10 in F1. The rules specify a v10. The flat configuration may eliminate the problem with vibrations but it would be too wide.

DNQ · 5 Sep 2002, 07:34 (Ref:373561)

You'd think Renault would remember that it is good to stick with ideas...anyone remember the turbo Renaults...they were terrible to begin with (worse than the RS01 by FAR), but look were they ended up.

Jukebox · 5 Sep 2002, 08:32 (Ref:373583)

Quote:

Originally posted by alfasud
The problem with 180 degrees is a wider engine with exhaust plumbing hanging down underneath - not only an aerodynamic issue but if you have to raise the crankshaft to clear the exhaust, then you raise the centre to gravity, so what's the point?

I'm sure that Racecar Engineering suggested a 110 deg. V10 configuration where the exhaust ran in the centre of the V and the induction ran between the inlet and exhaust cam. I'm not sure if anyone is actually working on this configuration of not. Renault seem to use conventional F1 induction and exhaust.

I agree that it would be a disaster if an engine were to be spreaded at 180 degrees flat. Renault however with the 111 degrees V spread were able to reduce the center of gravity of the engine and the car, other problems like extra vibration would occur hence they have to reduce the hp and by having longer wheelbases.

Are you sure about the idea of having the exhaust ran in the center of the V by certain racecar engineering? Where and how would the manifold of the exhausts fit in between and what about the tip of both the exhausts pipe? fitted right next to eachother?

Here's a picture of the RS22

**Bononi** · 5 Sep 2002, 13:09 (Ref:373751)

Quote:

Originally posted by DNQ
You'd think Renault would remember that it is good to stick with ideas...anyone remember the turbo Renaults...they were terrible to begin with (worse than the RS01 by FAR), but look were they ended up.

That's eaxctly what I was expecting from Renault, DNQ !

Coult it be a strategic manoeuvre, put a conventional engine for next year, while developing this one to make it more reliable ??

Inigo Montoya · 5 Sep 2002, 13:22 (Ref:373759)

No Bon, its the opposite. They are keeping this engine until end of 2003, then they will switch to the 90 degree V.

**Dani Filth** · 5 Sep 2002, 17:42 (Ref:373934)

i've heard that ferrari is trying to buil an engine with a lower CG not using a wider angle but making the engine smaller in height .. using a larger bore(normally smaller stroke) ... and as a result higher revs for the engines ... maybe this would be a better solution to the low CG that the 111 degrees engine ..

Guisbro Rod H · 5 Sep 2002, 19:58 (Ref:374034)

All engine manufacturers have been following the trend for short stroke engines with reduced height for decades. This trend accelerated in the mid 90's, compare the Benneton's compact Ford engine of 1994 with the 1967 based 3 litre Cosworth DFV; the latter was massive in comparison. The modern short stroke and improved bearings allow the move from 10,500 revs to 18,000 with the power going from 400 to 800bhp.

It is said that currently it is the Honda that is too tall and needs to be smaller. They are certainly pushing their backward technology to the limit or beyond if Spa is representative.

Guisbro Rod H · 5 Sep 2002, 20:30 (Ref:374054)

Just heard that Honda has lost three more engines today at Monza in testing - Autosport. The failures follow the five shared between British American Racing and Jordan at last weekend's Belgian Grand Prix.

neilap · 5 Sep 2002, 21:02 (Ref:374073)

The way the newer tracks are made it is now important to have some more torque too. A shorter stroke could limit that. The truth of the matter is we dont know half of what the people at Renault know so it is hard for us to say if this is the right choice.

Funny how Autosport jumps on certaiain stories

. They were also the ones saying that Sato will be given to Toyota along with a contract for motors. In some ways it is good that the motors blow now instead of in the race next week. There are steps up in power planned for the motor and these are the headaches that happen when it is done in such short time. Next year they say they will debut a new motor, again, wow!! Maybe they are abandoning the wide angle too.

**Bononi** · 6 Sep 2002, 12:56 (Ref:374518)

HONDA engines blowing this way, makes Eddie Jordan thinks he has done a good deal losing them...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which wide angle ?	Groupc	Motorsport Art & Photography	11	8 Oct 2005 20:13
Renault F3 Engine	Monkey Head	National & International Single Seaters	11	12 Mar 2004 10:56
Renaults wide V-angle.	Smokey 6 litre	Racing Technology	2	11 Feb 2003 06:25
V-angle yamaha f1 engine	f1parts	Racing Technology	3	25 Jul 2001 06:19
Renault engine	IgBar	Formula One	1	10 Nov 2000 05:50