Saab isn't dead. Okay, well it mostly is. But this particular one isn't.

[thesameguy]

I first read about this type of technology like 20 years ago - I think BMW was working on it at the time but never got anywhere. Sounds like Koenigsegg has...

http://jalopnik.com/what-its-like-to-ride-in-a-car-with-the-camless-engine-1529865968

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19gt7ui93rrz2jpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

Camless engines, ho!

[Random]

BMW eliminated (or has the ability to eliminate) the TB with the amount of control they were getting with the most recent generation of VANOS/whatever they use to control lift. Sounds like two ends of the same problem: greater efficiency and control.

edit: "Valvetronic" is what they call it. Variable lift.

[thesameguy]

Yeah, but this is one step beyond that - it eliminates the mechanical link between the engine and the valves altogether, allowing everything from a cycle change to individual and multiple cylinder deactivation. If this could be put into production, with direct injection and forced induction you could have motors that were simultaneously ultra-efficient and ultra-powerful. It would be unsane!

[Random]

Yup. :)

[Crazed_Insanity]

Sounds great, but why don't they race with this in F-1? Due to regulation that engines must have cams?

[thesameguy]

Could be engine speed. There is almost certainly a ceiling to this type of technology, and it's probably much lower than the revs race motors run.

Also, could just be an application issue - race motors tend to run in a narrow RPM band because racers aren't just cruising around the track very often. Street driven motors have to do everything from idle to redline and part throttle to full throttle and back and forth all the time. Being able to produce an optimal intersection of power and economy for any given engine speed is great for street motors, probably less so for race motors.

[Random]

Regulations require a cam.

edit: went back and looked at this in partial response to LHutton's comment below regarding pneumatic actuation (that he since deleted). There is not actually an explicit requirement to use a camshaft in the technical regulations. It is stated that the valves are to be circular, reciprocating, poppet type, and that no variable valve timing or lift is allowed. The material and construction specifications for camshafts are given, as well, but there isn't a line item that says "thou shalt use a camshaft to actuate the valves." Interesting.

Technical regs are here (http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/) if anyone wants some night-time reading.

Engine nerds will be interested to know that the engine manufacturers use the hollow camshafts as the oil supply lines to the valvetrain and head. Neat.

[thesameguy]

ROFL. F1 is the NASCAR of racing.

:p

[Random]

They are using pneumatic valve springs, but valve actuation is still by cam.

[Godson]

Which is dumb.


I want the limits of engineering to be pushed, on all levels.

[Random]

There's kinda no reason to, in this case. If you can't do variable timing or lift, then why not stick with a tried and true mechanical system that's been pretty well perfected over the last century?

Engineering state-of-the-art is being pushed at the street-car level these days, not on the race track. :|

[Crazed_Insanity]

Somebody need to start a new kind of 'NASCAR' series that utilizes the state of art technologies seen in street cars! :p

Anyway, racing regulations really shouldn't be that detailed... should just define engine displacement and that's IT! If you can build a W-40 engine that with variable whatever that can beat other teams, good for you! ;)

Whatever, back to topic. So sorry to hear that we'll no longer be needing Cam around in the future. :D

[thesameguy]

I sort of agree. I'm not familiar enough with sanctioning bodies to understand fully their reasoning in regulations. I'm sure, somehow, loosely, it's tied back to safety... back when an engine could be 3l and someone figured out how to make 3l produce 2000hp that changed the game in an unsafe way.

[GB]

Christian Koenigsegg almost bought Saab... there must have been some reason a guy like that was interested in the company.

Too bad he and Victor Muller of Spyker couldn't have worked together to create something really cool.

[thesameguy]

Agreed!

[Kchrpm]

I figured that the very specific engine rules nowadays were meant to keep costs to stay competitive down (relatively). If you can use anything, then the teams that can afford to test everything will be the ones who win.

[Kchrpm]

And production based NASCAR has existed in various forms of road/endurance racing. American audiences don't care, and won't care.

[thesameguy]

I know... I was just being pissy. ;)

[Sad, little man]

Which is dumb.


I want the limits of engineering to be pushed, on all levels.

They did that in the 80s, it was too dangerous. Now we have this.

[LHutton]

I'd like to see a race series where powerplant is limited by weight and overall size footprint/external volume rather than arbitrary measures like capacity and configuration.

[JoshInKC]

Out of curiousity, what makes capacity more arbitrary than external volume?

[LHutton]

Out of curiousity, what makes capacity more arbitrary than external volume?
Because capacity doesn't describe how much the engine weighs or what physical size it, the latter of which has all kinds of knock-on implications on overall vehicle weight, weight distribution and drag. I can have a larger capacity engine that is physically smaller due to configuration.

[JoshInKC]

Okay, so it's not that its actually any more arbitrary, you're just choosing to de-emphasize capacity for the purposes of this hypothetical race series. Got it.
It does seem to that it would be a bit difficult to define weight and size for an engine, though. Would a super or turbocharger be counted toward engine weight? Intake/Exhaust mainfolds? What about an external oil pump?

[LHutton]

I was choosing to focus the engineering development of the teams on technology that would actually make quicker cars in the general sense, rather than quicker cars in the sense of that race series just because of the rules. Squeezing extra hp from a given capacity doesn't necessarily produce a faster car - not if you can increase capacity and get more power and still have a smaller, lighter engine. You would either have to choose to allow turbochargers in the series or not, if you do then the same rules apply. In such a series developers would have complete freedom to play with configuration and design within the given size and weight envelope rather than developing lots of horribly complicated, inefficient methods of squeezing every last drop of blood from a given capacity.

[Godson]

They did that in the 80s, it was too dangerous. Now we have this.


What I mean by this is put limits on things that are relevant, in intelligent manners.



Limit fuel consumption by restricting how much fuel can actually be used, this would limit power levels and allow for flexibility in other areas, like engine design. Limit fuel pressure, limit fuel line diameter, you limit max power. Allow these engineers to think outside of the box.

[thesameguy]

I love the idea of setting an economy target - that has clear benefits in every measure. I imagine to some degree that type of engineering is happening already as people want to minimize pit stops, but codifying it is good for everyone. :up:

[Godson]

Right now it is done in f1 by mandating no refuel and larger tanks.

Let these guys think in ways that are different. We already know turbos help, let them perfect other designs.

[Kchrpm]

F1 is also limiting the fuel rate now.

[LHutton]

I'm not sure the fuel limit adds anything. Fuel efficiency has always been paramount simply due to the number of pit-stops needed or the all-up mass of the car and its affect on performance. I guess fuel limits will reduce the environmental impact though.

[Kchrpm]

It keeps teams from having a super aggressive fuel map to switch to get into position, followed by switching to a fuel-sipping engine map to just stay where they are for the rest of the race. If that helps prevent F1 races from doing the normal thing of 5 LAPS OF FURIOUS ACTION then follow the leader to the finish, I'm all for it.

[LHutton]

It keeps teams from having a super aggressive fuel map to switch to get into position, followed by switching to a fuel-sipping engine map to just stay where they are for the rest of the race. If that helps prevent F1 races from doing the normal thing of 5 LAPS OF FURIOUS ACTION then follow the leader to the finish, I'm all for it.
Surely if you limit boost pressure and rpm it would take care of that better? The map to increase hp at a given boost pressure involves injecting slightly less fuel and advancing timing.

[Kchrpm]

They're doing that, too.

[LHutton]

Okay I see how that makes sense now.