What does anyone reckon is going to be the big new things in engine design?
Materials and accuracy are presumably unlikely to suddenly change (I can't see any manafacturer suddenly making titanium conrods standard), so
how can engine designer squeeze more power out of the internal combustion engine? And although computerised design has improved flow etc through
manifolds there's presumably been as much improvement there as there's going to be....
More valves? Presumably 5 valves is physically the most you can cram in before you end up with stupidly small valves
Different fuels? Higher CRs could be used if we all go to bio-ethanol (though the green lobby might squash BE yet!!!)
Direct fuel injection (ie into the cylinder not the inlet manifold)
Electromechanical valves? Totally variable timing and quick actuation....
any other ideas?
I suspect manafacturers might also go for petrol turbos in a similar way that it's almost impossible to get a non turbo diesel now!!! A VV turbo
with totally variable electromechical valves would be a bundle of fun to tune.
The new 2 cylinder turbocharged fiat engine has hydraulically actuated valves (albeit, the "pump" is driven by a cam) which allows the
engine to be throttled just by valve timing, which reduces pumping losses.
[Edited on 1/11/08 by MikeRJ]
Downsizing and turbocharging to minimise CO2
This is already happening but there will be more of it so that higher BMEP's will be used at WOT i.e more boost so greater specific power.
This will involve strategies to improve knock limits.
Better materials will have to be used to allow higher pre-turbine temps.
Also friction management will be important for CO2 reduction by reduced component masses/ coatings etc etc
Also as mentioned non engine driven valves to reduce part throttle pumping losses.
I'm quite surprised nothing seems to have come of the variable compression designs that were being researched a few years back.
A sensible thing to do but I guess expensive. Might see a comeback though
Could be that the most significant advances will be in transmissions. If a contiuously variable transmission could be developed then the engine could
be held at whatever was its most powerful, or its most efficient speed, while the transmission allowed the car's speed to vary according to
requirements. No longer needing to accelerate the engine whenever the car was being acclerated could be beneficial
I'm aware that such devices exist, but are in their early stages yet
John
I thought there were a lot of cars with CVT's, nissan and ford offer them on some models in the states.
Benneton successfully tested an F1 CVT in the early 90's before they were banned.
quote:
Originally posted by liam.mccaffrey
I thought there were a lot of cars with CVT's, nissan and ford offer them on some models in the states.
quote:
Originally posted by liam.mccaffrey
I thought there were a lot of cars with CVT's, nissan and ford offer them on some models in the states.
Nissan Altima and Murano
Subaru Justy
Ford Fiesta
Fiat Uno
BMW Mini
Audi A4
Dodge Caliber
Jeep Compass and Patriot
Mitsi Lancer
from wikipedia, most as options admittedly.
I'm no fan of them btw, just find them interesting
[Edited on 1/11/08 by liam.mccaffrey]
There are plenty of CVT's around now. I have driven a Merc B class with one which normally uses 'virtual' gears around town but stays
at max power speed when max accel is demanded.
I don't think it is of any geat advantage as the min BSFC point is not hugely better than other speeds under normal operation.
The gearbox is expensive and inefficient.
quote:
Originally posted by liam.mccaffrey
Nissan Altima and Murano
Subaru Justy
Ford Fiesta
Fiat Uno
BMW Mini
Audi A4
Dodge Caliber
Jeep Compass and Patriot
Mitsi Lancer
from wikipedia, most as options admittedly.
I'm no fan of them btw, just find them interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by liam.mccaffrey
I thought there were a lot of cars with CVT's, nissan and ford offer them on some models in the states.
Benneton successfully tested an F1 CVT in the early 90's before they were banned.
I read an article the other day about the possibility of very high compression petrol engines, with direct injection and thus a dieselling petrol
engine.
Prob was pump and required pressures iirc.
For me, I think (unfortunately, as I like them) the int comb engine, while it'll be around for a while and will be developed for a few more
years, may well be past its sell by date.
Once battery technology has developed - and I think that'll take the time of computer evolution rather than the slow i/c development, then I
reckon we'll be driving them sooner rather than later.
Even though I still laugh at Prius owners
ATB
Simon
i think the tesla roadster proved that lecky cars didn't have to look like crap, like the prius
The Future
Graeme Wight Jr will be using this for 2009 Hillclimb Championship.
He previously used his Arrows V10 powered Predator....
Whatever happened to the V10 car?
I don't remember it competing a full season
Graeme got the V10 running for the last few events of the season (2008) and managed one outright win at Doune.
He has had a few problems with the gearbox and spat a gear out of the carbon fibre gearbox on his last run.
He is currently trying to sell the car OIRO £100K
Video of Doune Predator V10
[Edited on 1/11/08 by minitici]
What gearbox control did he use?
I think the Arrows used TAG with hydraulic control. I doubt GWR used this.
It is very difficult to get the change right.
If you demand a change at the wrong instant its game over fo the gears.
Also the mapping sounds a bit rough on the video.
As soon as there is a good way of storing or generating electricity in vehicle, IC engines will die. Electric propulsion is by far the best way of
moving a vehicle.
If there were electric motors and controllers available at eBay prices, I would already be building an electric vehicle. This is how I would do
it:
Have electric motors sized so that the vehicle has the desired performance. Have a small battery, say 10 or 20 miles range. Have a small but very
efficient generator, maybe 20 BHP. A 0-60 sprint may use, lets say 150 BHP but only for 5 seconds. The battery takes the hit. Once you get to 60 on
your nice B road, you stay there, using maybe 15 BHP. The generator gives you that and tops up the battery. 20 seconds later, your battery charge is
back where you started. On average, a car may only use about 10 BHP, taking the times at red lights and things into account. You only have brief
bursts of power. an IC engine is very inefficient at low power, which is most of the time. They are sized for max acceleration, which only happens
occasionally.
A carefully designed system like this need not weigh any more than a conventional car yet would be as fast as you like with exceptional MPG.
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Have a small but very efficient generator, maybe 20 BHP.
The main problem with battery/electric vehicles is the energy density.
The chemical energy stored in fuel is enormous even if you only are around 30-32% thermally efficient its way better than anything else (at the
moment)
Overall CO2 production in generating the electrical energy in the first place is way worse. This is usually ignored for political reasons!
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Have a small but very efficient generator, maybe 20 BHP.
What does this generator run on? Now you have introduced an extra stage of energy conversion efficiency is already compromised.
So why don't we see this type of system being used? It can't be down to cost, as the big manufacturers have plenty of wonga. My bet would be it is not nearly as efficient as you are hoping. And you sit next to an annoying buzzing generator. Give it a go and let us know!
quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
So why don't we see this type of system being used?