F1 Conrods

[Dr. Acula]

Saviour Stivala asked me what length I thought the Ferrari 1.6L Turbo V6 conrod in post #1 was. I dropped the photo into my CAD package and did some math and came up with a shorter / smaller rod than I had anticipated, at ~104mm. Be gentle, please, if I botched the assumptions / math...

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5545/dgVCwo.jpg

Well, there's a bit of a problem with your measurements. Because the rules say:

5.3.1 Cylinder bore diameter must be 80mm (+/‐ 0.1mm).

I mean a 72.5mm diameter piston in a 80mm diameter cylinder...well it would definitly explain why the 2014 Ferrari PU was so bad, but...i don't think this was the reason.

[saviour stivala]

1600cc V6. +0/-10cc (mandated).
Bore 80mm (mandated).
Stroke 53.05mm (maximum that can be).
Stroke/Bore ratio 0.66:1. (at above maximum stroke)
Con-rod length 130mm. (long rod for maximum efficiency/least friction). "in my opinion"
Con-rod Length/Crank radius ratio 4.9:1. (as per my opinion of con-rod length)
Crank pin bearing diameter 37.95mm (minimum diameter mandated).

[Gibbs]

I did the same thing when I first discovered these photos using 80mm bore as the base measurement and got 120mm +/- 2.5mm C-C as the con rod length. It's not orthographic so there will always be error.

[saviour stivala]

I did the same thing when I first discovered these photos using 80mm bore as the base measurement and got 120mm +/- 2.5mm C-C as the con rod length. It's not orthographic so there will always be error.

120mm rod length is very close to what I actually calculated from the photo. 120mm rod length will give a 4.5:1 rod/crank radius ratio if the maximum stroke possible of 53.05mm is used. but as said before, I very much doubt that what's in that photo belongs to a 2014 F1 power unit.

[ACRO]

the atmo era very big bore / ultra short stroke piston and conrod designs were just a masterpiece of engineering , amazing !

unfortunetly the engine makers had no use of that designs in any road engines or any other racing series - all the effort was purely done for formula1

a bore / stroke ratio of much more than 2:1 - that was stunning work of the past !

[ACRO]

And then you have your rods from 1940-something Messerschmitt Bf-109 DB 605 with the same interface. Wow. (More here: https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/ ... hp?t=15365)

https://imageshack.com/a/img921/6025/WAyhr7.jpg

the design in the DB 605 was a main and a split conrod on the opposite bank . that on the one hand eliminated any bank offset but on the other hand was not practical for high rpm,s and the stroke was slightly different from bank to bank

i think any f1 vee engine ever had bank offset .

[Tommy Cookers]

...the design in the DB 605 was a main and a split conrod on the opposite bank . that on the one hand eliminated any bank offset but on the other hand was not practical for high rpm,s and the stroke was slightly different from bank to bank

i think any f1 vee engine ever had bank offset .

the F1 Martin engine conspicuously had no bank offset

btw not what was asked - but the various 3 bank F1 engines could boggle the mind even if their banks were all offset

the 605 - I'll bite
how would split rods 'affect the stroke' or the 'rpm capability' ?
(of course coplanar articulated rods would - arguably)

[e36jon]

Greetings all

I failed to look up all of the mentioned engine regs, so thanks for setting the record straight on the supposed Ferrari F1 rod and piston.

Any thoughts on what it might be from if not an F1 motor? It seems sufficiently high spec that it would be from a top tier series, and with forced induction. WEC? DTM?

As to things ending up on collectors sites / ebay / etc, I think all sorts of legit items make it out of the garages. I wouldn't say that seeing it for sale automatically disqualifies it as being real. Real may be funky though: Out of a development motor? Something from a vendor? Etc.

I remain in awe of the collective brainpower on this forum...

Cheers,

Jon

[saviour stivala]

The Messerschmitt DB 605 Inverted 60 degree V12 used a fork and blade type of con-rod arrangement, an arrangement that resulted in no bank offset. It had a stroke of 160mm (same for both banks) and a bore of 154mm (under square configuration).

[saviour stivala]

Greetings all

I failed to look up all of the mentioned engine regs, so thanks for setting the record straight on the supposed Ferrari F1 rod and piston.

Any thoughts on what it might be from if not an F1 motor? It seems sufficiently high spec that it would be from a top tier series, and with forced induction. WEC? DTM?

As to things ending up on collectors sites / ebay / etc, I think all sorts of legit items make it out of the garages. I wouldn't say that seeing it for sale automatically disqualifies it as being real. Real may be funky though: Out of a development motor? Something from a vendor? Etc.

I remain in awe of the collective brainpower on this forum...

Cheers,

Jon

My doubt wasn’t if that piston rod assemble shown in that picture from on that Japanese collector’s site belongs to a formula one engine or not, it was and still is if it belongs to a 2014 formula one onwards 1.6l-V6 turbocharged engine.

[saviour stivala]

the atmo era very big bore / ultra short stroke piston and conrod designs were just a masterpiece of engineering , amazing !

unfortunetly the engine makers had no use of that designs in any road engines or any other racing series - all the effort was purely done for formula1

a bore / stroke ratio of much more than 2:1 - that was stunning work of the past !

The era of the quest for ever higher engine RPM as the fastest way to increase outputs was reached or better say stopped when the combination of a bore of 98mm and a stroke of 39.8mm (bore/stroke ratio 0.406:1), a cylinder capacity of 300cc was used. This bore/stroke combination was used on the 3.0-litre V10 and carried over to the 2.4-litre V8.

[PVDL]

I just added the last few images from the Japanese site. One thing I noticed is some new-to-me machining for locating the rod cap. Wish they had opened that joint up, which is greedy given all that they did show. Anyone ever see the machining in question before? Any images of what that looks like 'open'?

E36,

Multi directional serrations on rod big ends were used in WW2 German military aircraft engines.

Cheers,
Paul Van Der Linden

[Hoffman900]

the atmo era very big bore / ultra short stroke piston and conrod designs were just a masterpiece of engineering , amazing !

unfortunetly the engine makers had no use of that designs in any road engines or any other racing series - all the effort was purely done for formula1

a bore / stroke ratio of much more than 2:1 - that was stunning work of the past !

The era of the quest for ever higher engine RPM as the fastest way to increase outputs was reached or better say stopped when the combination of a bore of 98mm and a stroke of 39.8mm (bore/stroke ratio 0.406:1), a cylinder capacity of 300cc was used. This bore/stroke combination was used on the 3.0-litre V10 and carried over to the 2.4-litre V8.

It’s a struggle to get good / consistent combustion over 100mm bores at those engine speeds, with port injection. I think this is why you saw things converge on that 98-100mm bore size.

Even NASCAR engines are right around 106mm and it’s not by accident.

[e36jon]

Multi directional serrations on rod big ends were used in WW2 German military aircraft engines.

Greetings Paul

Back on page 3 (I wish these posts were numbered! Is there a setting I am missing?) a WWII ME airplane rod was shared showing the serrated interface. My question remains though, what does that Pankl crossed serration pattern look like, and how in the world would you machine it? Any chance you have access to any images of that Pankl serrated interface to share?

Thanks for the post here! I was worried the thread had gone the great archive in the sky...

Cheers,

Jon

[Tommy Cookers]

The era of the quest for ever higher engine RPM as the fastest way to increase outputs was reached or better say stopped when the combination of a bore of 98mm and a stroke of 39.8mm (bore/stroke ratio 0.406:1), a cylinder capacity of 300cc was used. This bore/stroke combination was used on the 3.0-litre V10 and carried over to the 2.4-litre V8.

It’s a struggle to get good / consistent combustion over 100mm bores at those engine speeds, with port injection. I think this is why you saw things converge on that 98-100mm bore size. ...

I think the previous poster meant that Mercedes jumped to 98 and then arranged a permanent freeze rule
helped by Renault (part-owned by Mercedes and by government(s))

did the Honda NR500 have a greater ratio of 'bore'/stroke ?