Ferrari Mailing List: Re: V10 in Ferrari street car

[Lashdeep Singh (lashdeep]

Rick, do you remember which one that was?

They only made four and one is at Donington, one was wrecked and Bernie owns one I think.

LSJ

On Feb 5, 2018, at 22:15, Rick Moseley <ramosel [at] pacbell.net> wrote:

There was an owner of one of the H-16 BRM F1 cars who showed up at the Historic Races 15 years back or so.   I don't remember ever seeing the car on track, but they would start it in the pits.   That thing was sooooooo noisy.   And I'm not talking about the exhaust.   Reminded me of typing class in 8th grade.   Now I'm giving my age away!

On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Doug & Terri <dnt [at] dock.net> wrote:

So why all the cylinders?  In theory, the more swept piston crown area, the more horse power.  In theory.

So in the mid-1960’s BRM took the bull by the tail and looked the situation square in the eye – 16 (as in sixteen) cylinders.  Two flat 8’s on top of each other driving a jack shaft to the clutch and transmission.

Where can you see one of these in action?  Why John Frankenheimer’ s movie “Grand Prix.”  The last race at Monza.  Weird sounding little beastie.

So Rick’s observation of “. . . parasitic loss vs. number of cylinders”  is the reason we don’t see these trick motors today.

Onward

DOUG

 

From: Ferrari [mailto:ferrari-bounces+dnt=dock.net [at] ferrarilist.com] On Behalf Of Rick Moseley
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 6:10 PM
To: DOUG <dnt [at] dock.net>
Cc: 'The FerrariList' <ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com>
Subject: Re: [Ferrari] V10 in Ferrari street car

 

 

 

Clyde,

I was mighty impressed with the LFA I got to ride in.

 

Agree with you on the NSX.  Very nice car, but not impressive.

 

Fellippe,

Many years back the SAE published a paper on the relationship of parasitic loss vs. number of cylinders.  In short their findings were that the auto makers were doing it all wrong.  The best relationship numbers for efficiency were the I3, I5 and V10.  So the I4, I6, V6, V8 and V12 formats just weren't that sweet spot. There is a reason the F1 boys went to V10s many years ago.  And a stupid reason they have abandoned them.

 

Side note: I've talked to my friend, the F1 trackside support for a big name company (Brian, Clyde and few others know who I mean) and he said that with modern materials and valve trains they have minimized those relational differences but yes they still exist.  Its just physics and they haven't (yet) found a way around it.  But when everyone plays with the same handicap, it really doesn't matter.

 

The Viper V10 is the worst sounding thing... but I think that is because of the valve angles.   Sounds like a chainsaw to me.

My favorite.... Alfa Romeo V12 F1 motor.   efficient or not.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

The LFA is a joke much like the NSX new version or old versions 

The Japanese don’t get it 

Never have never will

The tried there damnedest with NSX but fell way short of the mark

Japan builds reliable cars with no Panache !

Much like Porsche and Mercedes 

And blenders!

 

 

 

 
On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:26 AM, Fellippe Galletta <fellippe.galletta [at] gmail.com> wrote:

Do you guys think that if Ferrari eschewed turbocharging in their V8 cars, that at some point a V10 would be/would have been sought after once the displacement neared/exceeded 5.0 liters?

The Gallardo started off at a 5.0L, and the LFA a 4.8.....it seems this is the sweet spot for a flat plane crank exotic motor of 10 cylinders.

Maybe Ferrari goes back to the F310B just like they did the 641 for the F50.

I'm not a huge fan of the V10 sound, but seeing that the LFA made a pretty sweet sounding one, I'd imagine Ferrari would be able to do just as good or better.

 

FG

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/lashdeep%40yahoo.com

Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/