Koenigsegg camshaft free engine

[Divvyboy]

Utterly brilliant technologys. No more cam belts or chains either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bch5B23_pu0

[MrBarry123]

Your name seems appropriate given the poor attempt at a thread title.

[KTF]

All that talk but nothing showing the engine in the 95 running/driving. Shame as that would have been interesting to see.

[TVR1]

MrBarry123 said:

Your name seems appropriate given the poor attempt at a thread title.

That seems a little harsh. A newbie who hasn't quite realised that 'autocorrect' screws up lots of things. Besides, if the OP asks a Mod to correct it, they probably will.

And.... A lovely find too! Much better than the ste newbies usually post up.

Rather than bh Mr 10 minutes 147 posts Barry, find something interesting and educational to say.

HTH

[TooMany2cvs]

To be fair, "camshaft-free" engines are hardly a new thing to Saabs. It took 'em a couple of decades to start using camshafts and valves, after all.

[Fire99]

TVR1 said:

And.... A lovely find too!

I agree. I find Koenigsegg quite fascinating in their technical developments.. The owner is clearly passionate about cars, performance and engineering..

[Buff Mchugelarge]

Good video

I can't wait for some of this technology to find it's way into everyday cars. The future is looking quite exciting

[anonymous-user]

WOOHOO, party like it's 1997.............. ;-)


(the issue with the internal combustion engine is the fundamental thermal efficiency limit, not the couple of percent frictional loss from the camtrain)

[V8covin]

Max_Torque said:

WOOHOO, party like it's 1997.............. ;-)


(the issue with the internal combustion engine is the fundamental thermal efficiency limit, not the couple of percent frictional loss from the camtrain)

Friction isn't the issue but you would have understood that if you'd watched the video.
30% better fuel economy,30% more torque and 30% more bhp is not to be sniffed at....and that's on an existing engine not a purpose built design

[skyrover]

Because actuators never stick

[marshalla]

It's not exactly a new idea, some companies even offer to train others in how to do it : http://www.lotuscars.com/gb/engineering/active-val...

[Fire99]

skyrover said:

Because actuators never stick

It has it's own challenges but you have to herald them doing things a different way.

[GroundEffect]

V8covin said:

Max_Torque said:

WOOHOO, party like it's 1997.............. ;-)


(the issue with the internal combustion engine is the fundamental thermal efficiency limit, not the couple of percent frictional loss from the camtrain)

Friction isn't the issue but you would have understood that if you'd watched the video.
30% better fuel economy,30% more torque and 30% more bhp is not to be sniffed at....and that's on an existing engine not a purpose built design

30% better thermal efficiency? Ahahaha.

[McSam]

GroundEffect said:

30% better thermal efficiency? Ahahaha.

Indeed where do we sign?!

I always applaud innovation, and it has all sorts of potential for infinitely variable timing and a handy little reduction in parasitic loss but it's not going to revolutionise the internal combustion engine. Cost and serviceability are my concerns.

[skyrover]

Fire99 said:

skyrover said:

Because actuators never stick

It has it's own challenges but you have to herald them doing things a different way.

I can see possible advantages is racing /engines with short lives.

But not in a modern family car expected to reach 200,000 miles without issue.

Unless they build the engines to be non-interference, a chain/belt is simpler, more reliable and less risky.

[anonymous-user]

V8covin said:

Max_Torque said:

WOOHOO, party like it's 1997.............. ;-)


(the issue with the internal combustion engine is the fundamental thermal efficiency limit, not the couple of percent frictional loss from the camtrain)

Friction isn't the issue but you would have understood that if you'd watched the video.
30% better fuel economy,30% more torque and 30% more bhp is not to be sniffed at....and that's on an existing engine not a purpose built design

I watch the video when it first came out, and nothings changed!


The fundamental issues that are completely skipped in that video are significant, for example:

1) Where in the video does it mention the power consumed by the system? You see, a conventional valve spring has a low hysteretic component, and that means really the only loses from a conventional cam driven valvetrain are frictional. And a modern "Low friction" valvetrain is, like i said in my first post, only really "wasting" a couple of percent of engine power. This system "wastes" the compessed air used to open the valve on every valve event.

2) 30% lower fuel consumption: Sorry, but that's bull. The only way you can improve fuel economy with valvetrain events is by using the valve as the throttle (as people like BMW already do in production and have been doing for >5 years! And no way is that worth 20% (try 3->5% absolute max)

3) 30% more Power/torque. Currently, specific power output in not in anyway limited by conventional mechanical valvetrains. F1 engines make >250bhp/litre with cams, turbo road cars ~200bhp/litre with cams etc etc. No volume engine manufacture is "Power limited" by their valvetrains any longer.

4) Opening against cylinder pressure and/or exhaust backpressure> The demo valve was just sat on a table. Sure enough, they showed a "square" (ish) opening profile. Well, that ain't exactly difficult, and without seeing the opening distance / timebase of the valve it was not possible to tell if that profile was "aggressive" or not (hint, check the opening accel for an F1 inlet valve at 19Krpm!)

5) Thermal system limits. Currently, most engines are pushing higher and higher exhaust gas temperatures, that direct impact valve metal temperatures. What is the limitation for this system? Again no mention in the video.

6) Costs and reliability. No mention

7) Failure modes. No mention

8) Critical frequency and valve motion modial analysis. No Mention


So, in summary, Yeah nice prototype, and maybe it has some merit for race engines, or low volume OEM useages, but by the time it's as cheap/efficient and robust as a conventional Cam driven valve train, we'll be all battery powered anyway. (hence my party like it's 1997 quip!)

[anonymous-user]

McSam said:

and a not so handy little increasereduction in parasitic loss

Unless the system can somehow re-capture the air used to open the valve, it has a HIGHER loss than a valvespring!

[MrBarry123]

TVR1 said:

That seems a little harsh. A newbie who hasn't quite realised that 'autocorrect' screws up lots of things. Besides, if the OP asks a Mod to correct it, they probably will.

And.... A lovely find too! Much better than the ste newbies usually post up.

Rather than bh Mr 10 minutes 147 posts Barry, find something interesting and educational to say.

HTH

No, I prefer making silly comments.

[McSam]

Max_Torque said:

McSam said:

and a not so handy little increasereduction in parasitic loss

Unless the system can somehow re-capture the air used to open the valve, it has a HIGHER loss than a valvespring!

I hadn't done too much thinking about this particular system, just thought that there must be some potential to achieve reduced losses in a camless engine.

I found your post above interesting though, your experience is very useful!

[SV8Predator]

MrBarry123 said:

No, I prefer making silly comments.

But that wasn't a "silly comment", was it?

You've really not got the hang of this, have you?