1. Mount engine on pivot of some kind (put the crankshaft coming out of one of the pivots on a CVJ, then at 90 degrees, then on as normal [see attachment]).
2. Weld/Superglue large counterweight at the bottom of the sump (on the outside)
3. Drive upside-down
4. Watch in awe as the engine continues to function perfectly
5. ???
6. PROFIT! (Or not, as you've just spent several million designing a free-swinging engine)

It may not be absolutely perfect, but the basic design is there

Why can't an engine run upside-down for a few seconds anyway? I'd imagine that they won't be spending all day up there

Eh, it's not hard. In principle.

Surely if you just mounted the car upside-down on the jacks.... inserted the engine, simply flipping any relevant parts such as gearbox and control connections it should work

thinking about it, it would probably be cheaper to modify a full size wind tunnel to have a moving roof rather than floor and then mount the car upside down against it, get the fan and roof up to speed and then withdraw the support.


obviously it would have to have tethers as well or it would do what is rumoured to have happened to honda's car in their new windtunnel last year, i.e. they didnt fasten it down and it went straight into the rear of the test chamber.

Quote from dougie-lampkin :

1. Mount engine on pivot of some kind (put the crankshaft coming out of one of the pivots on a CVJ, then at 90 degrees, then on as normal [see attachment]).
2. Weld/Superglue large counterweight at the bottom of the sump (on the outside)
3. Drive upside-down
4. Watch in awe as the engine continues to function perfectly
5. ???
6. PROFIT! (Or not, as you've just spent several million designing a free-swinging engine)

It may not be absolutely perfect, but the basic design is there

Why can't an engine run upside-down for a few seconds anyway? I'd imagine that they won't be spending all day up there

hmm interesting idea but i cant help wondering if with the engine being free to swivel you'll get find that rather than the crank turning the transmission, it would find it easier for the crank to stay still and the engine to spin round like the WW1 (non wankle) rotary engines where the prop was fastened to the crankcase rather than the crankshaft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

Quote from tinvek :

thinking about it, it would probably be cheaper to modify a full size wind tunnel to have a moving roof rather than floor and then mount the car upside down against it, get the fan and roof up to speed and then withdraw the support.


obviously it would have to have tethers as well or it would do what is rumoured to have happened to honda's car in their new windtunnel last year, i.e. they didnt fasten it down and it went straight into the rear of the test chamber.

read my older post, same idea!

Just my two-cents, but I couldn't sleep last night speaking of this ?

Before thinking about whether the BF1's engine could work upside down, we should wonder about the downforce produced.
I don't know the exact amount of downforce produced, but I've heard readind those pages that at 161 mph, the BF1 can produce enough downforce to equal.
So basically, when driving on the roof at 161 mph, the downforce created will be equal to the weight, with the force going upwards. The only problem is that is the downforce equals, the sum of the forces exerted on the BF1 will be equal to zero (value of weight + value of downforce -which is negative- = 0).

This won't make the BF1 able to stand on the roof, because if the weight is zero, the force exerted on the tires will be equal to zero, as if the tires had nothing on them to keep them stick to the ground (even they will be weightless). Which means that at 161 mph, the tires won't have enough grip to keep pushing the car forward, so the speed will reduce drastically (because of the excessive air resistance needed to create the downforce).
The result will be the car falling down on the ground, upside-down, resulting in the death of the driver, and the loss of a 20 million car... (omfg)

So, the car, in order to stay on the ground would need at least to create as much downforce as two times his weight (to make the tires have a grip on the ceiling). And in order to be driven like normally on the ground, they would need to create downforce equals to three times its weight.

How to do this ? Two options : Speed, or more wing angle.
In both case, a more powerful engine is needed. It seems obvious for the first option. For the second, more wing will create more air resistance, so a more powerful engine is needed to give the same performance with an increased air resistance.

OR, third option : getting Alonso, Hamilton, Massa and Kubica drive steady at 140, 150, 160 and 170 mph in the tunnel so that the driver of that BF1 will take their slipstream so counteract the air resistance and accelerate faster :P

Quote from Zen321 :

So basically, when driving on the roof at 161 mph, the downforce created will be equal to the weight, with the force going upwards. The only problem is that is the downforce equals, the sum of the forces exerted on the BF1 will be equal to zero (value of weight + value of downforce -which is negative- = 0).

This won't make the BF1 able to stand on the roof, because if the weight is zero, the force exerted on the tires will be equal to zero, as if the tires had nothing on them to keep them stick to the ground (even they will be weightless). Which means that at 161 mph, the tires won't have enough grip to keep pushing the car forward, so the speed will reduce drastically (because of the excessive air resistance needed to create the downforce).
The result will be the car falling down on the ground, upside-down, resulting in the death of the driver, and the loss of a 20 million car... (omfg)

So, the car, in order to stay on the ground would need at least to create as much downforce as two times his weight (to make the tires have a grip on the ceiling). And in order to be driven like normally on the ground, they would need to create downforce equals to three times its weight.

How to do this ? Two options : Speed, or more wing angle.
In both case, a more powerful engine is needed. It seems obvious for the first option. For the second, more wing will create more air resistance, so a more powerful engine is needed to give the same performance with an increased air resistance.

OR, third option : getting Alonso, Hamilton, Massa and Kubica drive steady at 140, 150, 160 and 170 mph in the tunnel so that the driver of that BF1 will take their slipstream so counteract the air resistance and accelerate faster :P

A f1 car at 125 km\h (in mid wing angles) creates its own weight in downforce; but at 190 km\h, it create 2 times it weight in downforce. So imagine at 330 km\h??

It was the gumpert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oFNDYW8ltc

I'm rather intrigued by this subject, although wouldn't the tunnel have to be completely circular?