high revs engine
Discussion
isnt it in teh regulations of f1, that they are not allowed traction or launch control, they did used to have traction control, most teams had a 1% error, from front wheels to back, the trction control was run from a petrol cut of, it was so effective becuase of teh light engine parts the revs and power could be taken of quick, that when wheelspin was detecteded, it was instantly stopped, renault actually had such a good system they allowed 3% slip,
im sure the car would be drivable, on teh road, u just pull away ina higher gear,let teh computer decide wot is approriate for eth amount of throttle pressed down,
launch control could be designed that the wright amount of torque at the wheels could be applied, with a electronic controlled clutch, and throttle limiter,(electronic throttle)
although would thsi be illegal on teh road, i will ahve to read through the sva.pdf to check, becuase if teh clutch and throttle was controlled by electrics, if they messed up,then ur the car could go for a joy ride by itself, lol, how much fun would that be, with only the steering u control, and brakes that have no effect on 1000bhp
lol
im sure the car would be drivable, on teh road, u just pull away ina higher gear,let teh computer decide wot is approriate for eth amount of throttle pressed down,
launch control could be designed that the wright amount of torque at the wheels could be applied, with a electronic controlled clutch, and throttle limiter,(electronic throttle)
although would thsi be illegal on teh road, i will ahve to read through the sva.pdf to check, becuase if teh clutch and throttle was controlled by electrics, if they messed up,then ur the car could go for a joy ride by itself, lol, how much fun would that be, with only the steering u control, and brakes that have no effect on 1000bhp
lol
electronics are much faster in reacting than humans,they can also detect small errors, and correct them b4 a human has even detected a bit of slip of teh road wheels, thats why drive by wire is so good,
a comnputer would also be good at steering a car on a track, becuse every possibility could be accounted for, but obviously not on teh road,
a comnputer would also be good at steering a car on a track, becuse every possibility could be accounted for, but obviously not on teh road,
does anyone know of any coatings to piston and other parts the engine , ie cylinder walls, and bearings. that reduces the friction, because if u can have a low co efficent of friction then it allows u higher bhp,and less stress on th eengine,
i have heard of coatings that reduce friction, but idealy u need a coating with the abilty to not conduct heat to, so minimal power is lost in the combustion process, so if there is a coatimng that does both, that would be perfect
Hi, you can use Molybdenum Disulphide on piston skirts to prevent/reduce wear and scuffing.
Friction modified oils such as slick 50, and ZX1 in your oil to prevent bearing wear etc.
If youre after *Ultimate* power and scraping every last BHP out of your engine, then optimising tolerances(blueprinting) is the way to go.
Basically this technique ensures all tolerances are at the optimum for power, such as piston to bore clearances etc.
Hope this helps ya.
Friction modified oils such as slick 50, and ZX1 in your oil to prevent bearing wear etc.
If youre after *Ultimate* power and scraping every last BHP out of your engine, then optimising tolerances(blueprinting) is the way to go.
Basically this technique ensures all tolerances are at the optimum for power, such as piston to bore clearances etc.
Hope this helps ya.
Look into PTFE. At one time it was a big thing in drag racing to have PTFE inserts of some sort (can't remember the exact details) fitted to the pistons to reduce friction. Might well still use them. See if you can get any more info by doing a search on drag racing engine builders such as Keith Black, Rodeck or Milodon.
i heard of ptfe before, the problem is, i cant seem to find a coating that will reduce friction and stop heat conductance to the piston, some ceramics have these propertys but they are brittle and crack, and the strength is has something left to be desired, ceramics would be perfect for fuel economy car, but not performance,
blue printing, do u mean better drilling and finishing of teh bore and pistons, so a tighter fit is possible, i heard that cryogenics, reduce friction of teh engine and increase streght, but does it reduce friction as well as a coating,
cryogenics, process of freezing metals to turn them from a austenite to a marsenite, ie arrange the atoms in a ordily fashion
after the cryogenic freezing i fink teh block can be bored to a better accuracy and pistons made better too, so a closer fit is possible
>> Edited by roospuppet on Monday 30th December 21:18
cryogenics, process of freezing metals to turn them from a austenite to a marsenite, ie arrange the atoms in a ordily fashion
after the cryogenic freezing i fink teh block can be bored to a better accuracy and pistons made better too, so a closer fit is possible
>> Edited by roospuppet on Monday 30th December 21:18
I dont know anything about the use of cryogenics to reduce friction.
As i previously posted, the Molybdenum Disulphide coating is applied to the thrust faces of the pistons to reduce friction and the consequent scuffing that can occur.
You also might need to look at reducing inertia loads etc, that will all help.
As i previously posted, the Molybdenum Disulphide coating is applied to the thrust faces of the pistons to reduce friction and the consequent scuffing that can occur.
You also might need to look at reducing inertia loads etc, that will all help.
Captain Muppet said:
JonGwynne said: A guy I did a job with said his neighbor had modified a Ford V8 to use ball valves rather than poppet valves and had both lightened the engine and dramatically increased power (and reliability) in the process.
This wouldn't have been a push rod engine would it?
...I also wonder if it is possible (or even necessary) to incorporate variable timing in a ball-valve system since there is no cam shaft.
Variable phasing would be possible but timing would require remachining the valve.
I couldn't say whether it was a pushrod engine or not. I never saw it. I just heard about it second-hand.
What would the difference be?
Do the valvetrains on a pushrod engine rob more power than the OHC variety?
Isn't the Rover V8 used in the Griff/Chimera a pushrod engine?
Another alternate would be a wankel rotary. More practical less extreme than a gas turbine, with no valve train problems, reciprocating forces, extrememly high revs are attainable. Ie a 20 year old 12A motor can be tuned to produce (naturally aspirated) around 300hp maximum @16k+ rpms.
Fabricating your own motor, say a 26B copy (4 rotors, 2.6 litre) as used in the Mazda 787B le mans car will make over 700hp without forced induction.
Supercharging one of these has to my knowledge not been done, but 13B supercharged motors are vrey good. Barnseys 2nd most powerful rotary he has built was a 13B supercharged motor, which had so much torque the entire housing twisted on the dyno (It wasnt dowelled) At this level he reckons it was making about 400hp, at barely 7k rpms. Work has just been started on another motor, this time with fuel injection+supercharging, which has never been done before.
There has also been some experimentation with hydrogen powered rotarys, and they seem to have more promise than the piston varieties.
Maybe a tiny, say 700cc w/8 rotors or so would make an interesting experiment
Fabricating your own motor, say a 26B copy (4 rotors, 2.6 litre) as used in the Mazda 787B le mans car will make over 700hp without forced induction.
Supercharging one of these has to my knowledge not been done, but 13B supercharged motors are vrey good. Barnseys 2nd most powerful rotary he has built was a 13B supercharged motor, which had so much torque the entire housing twisted on the dyno (It wasnt dowelled) At this level he reckons it was making about 400hp, at barely 7k rpms. Work has just been started on another motor, this time with fuel injection+supercharging, which has never been done before.
There has also been some experimentation with hydrogen powered rotarys, and they seem to have more promise than the piston varieties.
Maybe a tiny, say 700cc w/8 rotors or so would make an interesting experiment
JonGwynne said:
I couldn't say whether it was a pushrod engine or not. I never saw it. I just heard about it second-hand.
What would the difference be?
Do the valvetrains on a pushrod engine rob more power than the OHC variety?
Isn't the Rover V8 used in the Griff/Chimera a pushrod engine?
Push rods have a lot of recipricating inertia and are not as efficient as ohc (lower rev ceiling). If you change the valve gear on an old clunky engine you have much more scope for improvement to "prove" you concept.
If someone out there wants to prove their poppet valve replacement is a genuine improvement then they should use a base engine which has a cutting edge valvetrain on it - like a Honda Vtec or a high rev bike engine.
grahambell said: ...Captain Muppet quotes 22,000rpm from a 250cc Kawasaki engine 10 years ago. Well it's always going to be easier to get high revs out of a smaller engine because all the parts are smaller and lighter and therefore have lower inertia which in turn causes lower stresses.
Also, was that engine a four stroke or a two stroke? Two strokes have no valves and therefore no valve train problems to worry about and do tend to rev higher - helped by the fact two strokes are always small capicity engines...
It's a four stroke. Light pistons, tiny stroke, valves like drawing pins.
Modern 600cc bikes will happily run over 15000rpm - a good place to start if you want a 2.4 litre V16 producing 480bhp. That's without any additional tuning...
Captain Muppet said:
JonGwynne said:
I couldn't say whether it was a pushrod engine or not. I never saw it. I just heard about it second-hand.
What would the difference be?
Do the valvetrains on a pushrod engine rob more power than the OHC variety?
Isn't the Rover V8 used in the Griff/Chimera a pushrod engine?
Push rods have a lot of recipricating inertia and are not as efficient as ohc (lower rev ceiling). If you change the valve gear on an old clunky engine you have much more scope for improvement to "prove" you concept.
If someone out there wants to prove their poppet valve replacement is a genuine improvement then they should use a base engine which has a cutting edge valvetrain on it - like a Honda Vtec or a high rev bike engine.
I take your point. Still, poppet valves are pretty lame on several levels. They are cheap to mass produce and lots of people out there have lots of experience designing engines with them but on paper, they still seem a poor choice.
The entire point of an engine (a high performance one anyway) is to pump as much air and fuel through as possible. Ball valves (and they aren't the only option) allow this and they do it without the complexity, fragility and drag of a poppet valve train.
Carbs were the choice of most car companies until the 1970s and, for some, even into the 80s. Fuel injection has been around since the 1950s and was known to be more efficient, more reliable and more user-friendly.
Now companies are experimenting with direct-intection technologies that promise further improvements in efficiency. I hear rumors that the Bugatti Veyron's 8 liter, 16 cylinder, quad-turbo engine that puts out a mind-boggling 1000bhp can still return better than 20mpg.
All I'm saying is that maybe it is time to consider alternatives to the poppet valve.
JonGwynne said: ...The entire point of an engine (a high performance one anyway) is to pump as much air and fuel through as possible. Ball valves (and they aren't the only option) allow this and they do it without the complexity, fragility and drag of a poppet valve train.
Ball valves are very low drag, but only when fully open. During opening and closing you get lots of turbulent flow.
I'd also worry about the service life of a part that is a sliding fit with a seal at -40 degrees C that also operates at 800 degrees. Thermal expansion is a bugger to take up.
...All I'm saying is that maybe it is time to consider alternatives to the poppet valve.
It's always time to consider cheaper, simpler, more durable alternative for anything. Manufacturers are always looking for alternatives and as soon as one arrives you'll see it in production.
JonGwynne said:
Captain Muppet said:
JonGwynne said:
I couldn't say whether it was a pushrod engine or not. I never saw it. I just heard about it second-hand.
What would the difference be?
Do the valvetrains on a pushrod engine rob more power than the OHC variety?
Isn't the Rover V8 used in the Griff/Chimera a pushrod engine?
Push rods have a lot of recipricating inertia and are not as efficient as ohc (lower rev ceiling). If you change the valve gear on an old clunky engine you have much more scope for improvement to "prove" you concept.
If someone out there wants to prove their poppet valve replacement is a genuine improvement then they should use a base engine which has a cutting edge valvetrain on it - like a Honda Vtec or a high rev bike engine.
I take your point. Still, poppet valves are pretty lame on several levels. They are cheap to mass produce and lots of people out there have lots of experience designing engines with them but on paper, they still seem a poor choice.
The entire point of an engine (a high performance one anyway) is to pump as much air and fuel through as possible. Ball valves (and they aren't the only option) allow this and they do it without the complexity, fragility and drag of a poppet valve train.
Carbs were the choice of most car companies until the 1970s and, for some, even into the 80s. Fuel injection has been around since the 1950s and was known to be more efficient, more reliable and more user-friendly.
Now companies are experimenting with direct-intection technologies that promise further improvements in efficiency. I hear rumors that the Bugatti Veyron's 8 liter, 16 cylinder, quad-turbo engine that puts out a mind-boggling 1000bhp can still return better than 20mpg.
All I'm saying is that maybe it is time to consider alternatives to the poppet valve.
Jon,
I agree with what you are saying here. As far as improvements/alternatives to poppet valves or any crank driven valve system, the most promising and interesting is the research and testing of ECU controlled, solenoid operated valves.
Essentially, you have a solenoid sitting on the top of the valve stem. This solenoid is actuated by a signal from the ECU and the valve opens or closes.
The advantages of this would seem obvious, virtual real time dynamic adjustment (as small a single cycle can be altered should the ECU sense the need for this), adaptability to engine loads, better more accurate timing, faster operating speeds, higher overall engine rpms, complete elimination of the camshafts and consequently no draw on crank energy, save that which the alternator requires. This system also permits much 'tighter' valve overlaps and improved valve cooling as it actuates more quickly leaving the scavenged off-cycle time for heat transfer into the head.
The system was already in use with two F-1 Teams in the 2002 season. Designers envision this allowing engine rpms to increase to a staggering 24,000-26,000 rpm (racing applications of course). At the rate that innovations are hitting the marketplace these days, expect to see some high-end models offering this within 5-7 years. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE
Captain Muppet said:
JonGwynne said: ...The entire point of an engine (a high performance one anyway) is to pump as much air and fuel through as possible. Ball valves (and they aren't the only option) allow this and they do it without the complexity, fragility and drag of a poppet valve train.
Ball valves are very low drag, but only when fully open. During opening and closing you get lots of turbulent flow.
I'd also worry about the service life of a part that is a sliding fit with a seal at -40 degrees C that also operates at 800 degrees. Thermal expansion is a bugger to take up.
...All I'm saying is that maybe it is time to consider alternatives to the poppet valve.
It's always time to consider cheaper, simpler, more durable alternative for anything. Manufacturers are always looking for alternatives and as soon as one arrives you'll see it in production.
There are possibilities to deal with the thermal-expansion issues - materials like Invar might be one way.
I wouldn't overestimate the innovational tendencies of giant car companies though. A fundamental re-design of an engine like that would cost them billions.. They would have to balance that cost against the benefits to them in terms of doing it. After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart.
JonGwynne said: ...I wouldn't overestimate the innovational tendencies of giant car companies though. A fundamental re-design of an engine like that would cost them billions.. They would have to balance that cost against the benefits to them in terms of doing it. After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart.
To redesign does cost billions, but to include an inovation in a new design just costs millions, most of which will be paid by the tier 1 supplier of that component.
Captain Muppet said:
JonGwynne said: ...I wouldn't overestimate the innovational tendencies of giant car companies though. A fundamental re-design of an engine like that would cost them billions.. They would have to balance that cost against the benefits to them in terms of doing it. After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart.
To redesign does cost billions, but to include an inovation in a new design just costs millions, most of which will be paid by the tier 1 supplier of that component.
But completely redesigning the valve train of an engine would be a pretty major step. Plus, there would be considerable resistance from engineering types who tend to believe there is only one way to do something... their way.
Look at Gordon Murray's carping about AWD and forced induction in the latest EVO magazine. I mean, we all know he should be proud of the job done with the McLaren F1 but I was astounded by his combination of arrogance and sanctimoniousness when discussing cars that he felt were beneath the F1.
Take a pill Gordon. The F1 was a fine car but it wasn't perfect then and isn't perfect now.
JonGwynne said:
Captain Muppet said:
JonGwynne said: ...I wouldn't overestimate the innovational tendencies of giant car companies though. They would have to balance that cost against the benefits to them in terms of doing it. After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart.
To redesign does cost billions, but to include an inovation in a new design just costs millions, most of which will be paid by the tier 1 supplier of that component.
But completely redesigning the valve train of an engine would be a pretty major step. Plus, there would be considerable resistance from engineering types who tend to believe there is only one way to do something... their way.
Jon,
I have to disagree with you on this one. While you are correct when you state that:"After all, they're not making cars for their health and they do not have our best interests at heart." you stopped short of stating what they are interested in, namely profits. And profits are mainly derived in two ways; selling more units, and/or reducing the cost per unit produced.
An innovation promising the very real improvements in performance, fuel economy, lowered maintenance costs is going to be very accepted by the public, thus increasing sales. And one which offers the potential of easier manufacturing, lower parts caosts (electronic components massed produced cost very little and as Cap'n Mup suggested:"...most of which will be paid by the tier 1 supplier of that component." is very real), thus lowering production costs.
Add to that, it takes only one car maker to step forward with such an advanced design and all the rest will be in a scrambled frenzy to catch up and keep pace. We've seen this time and again, especially in the competitive Auto Industry. Happy Motoring...Jim '85TE
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff