Vintage postbag, July 1962

Author

admin

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Why multi-cylinders?

Sir,

Why did designers in the Vintage period build small multi-cylinder competition engines ? The question is prompted by the Editor’s invitation to “Meet the Twins,” and by John McLellan’s remark that Salmson built a straight-eight in pursuit of greater piston area.

It seems to have become an article of faith that the straight-eights of Henry and Miller, conceived under the influence of Bugatti aero engines, pointed the only way to racing success and doomed to failure any manufacturer so conservative as to use fewer cylinders. Perhaps the time has come to examine this theory critically.

Let us consider the Salmson engines. The 4-cylinder version has 62-mm. bore, giving a piston area of 121 sq. cm., while the eight with 49.9-mm. bore boasts 157 sq. cm. The 30% increase hardly seems to justify the extra weight and complication, particularly since the same result could have been achieved by building a 4-cylinder engine with approximate dimensions 70 mm x 69 mm. Nor can the 8-cylinder engine be regarded as an attempt to obtain higher r.p.m. without unreasonable piston speed, since although the stroke is 20 mm. shorter than that of the earlier 4-cylinder engine, it is 1 mm. longer than that of the theoretical 4-cylinder unit of equivalent piston area!

A reasonable explanation for the use of a small-bore multi-cylinder engine is the reduction of inertia loadings brought about by smaller and lighter pistons. However, the almost universal retention of a relatively long stroke with the high loadings which this implies makes nonsense of such a theory. It cannot even be claimed that Vintage designers took advantage of the smaller reciprocating parts of a multi-cylinder unit in order to raise the safe maximum r.p.m., since practically no such engine was capable of substantially greater speeds than a 4-cylinder of comparable date and design. Many, in fact, have a lower safe rev. limit than a four from the same manufacturer owing to lack of torsional rigidity in the crankshaft, a sad state of affairs exemplified by a comparison between the Type 30 and Type 23 Bugatti.

The Bugatti eight is explicable as the logical extension of the corresponding four, and owes more to production convenience than to enlightened design. A large American eight is perfectly acceptable in view of the difficulty of surrounding so many litres with only four cylinder barrels. The straight-eight G.P. Delage is a high speed engine years ahead of its time, and is outside the scope of this discussion. Discounting these examples, the construction of a small eight in the Vintage period seems singularly pointless. Is it possible that designers were carried away by the undoubted aesthetic appeal of such engines, regardless of practical considerations?

Bedford. A. Skinner.

Related articles

Related products