Jump to content


Photo

W9 engine - 2977cc, 526bhp


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#1 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 17 September 2007 - 14:00

This guy has made an engine in the unique W9 configuration (3 banks of 3 cylinders)
http://www.atomracing.se/6M.html

The W-angle here is 60 degrees so it will be slightly odd firing, whereas it would have to be 40 degrees for perfect even firing.
The statistics are impressive, especially the weight. Does this thing have potential?

I want to hear the sound it makes.

[the edit was me just taking the colon off the end of the first line to stop it turning into a smiley!]

Advertisement

#2 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,391 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 17 September 2007 - 17:31

Building a working engine from a clean sheet is an impressive endeavor. I hate to think what it cost.

I love the stubby crankshaft.

#3 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 17 September 2007 - 17:50

Originally posted by desmo
Building a working engine from a clean sheet is an impressive endeavor. I hate to think what it cost.

I love the stubby crankshaft.


If I had the money I'd build one myself. Or rather, I'd get someone to build one for me. I've just been working out the mass of weights you'd need on the balancing shafts if the banks were 40 degrees apart. It's not that much, but if it's 60 degrees you don't need any, which I guess is one reason they chose to make it that way.

I spent all weekend designing a car to put it in as well.

#4 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 6,921 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 September 2007 - 19:17

So what kinds of money would one need to design, build and develop?

#5 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 17 September 2007 - 19:26

Originally posted by Nathan
So what kinds of money would one need to design, build and develop?

Well the website isn't giving me any clues. I might write to the guy and ask some questions. In any event, I'm going to have to start saving up.

#6 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 September 2007 - 07:58

Originally posted by Nathan
So what kinds of money would one need to design, build and develop?


You can do things similar from cheap to outrageous, its the bloody time thats the biggest drama for these projects. This Guy keeps mentioning thiesis so I imagine of the 13 months mentioned he used a lot of his Uni time.

#7 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 September 2007 - 08:00

Originally posted by Moon Tricky


I spent all weekend designing a car to put it in as well.


A whole weekend huh? ;)

#8 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 September 2007 - 09:45

Originally posted by cheapracer

A whole weekend huh? ;)


Oh yeah... well, just the outside...

#9 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,323 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 18 September 2007 - 15:06

The thesis can be downloaded, in case someone has missed that:
http://epubl.ltu.se/...EX-06099-SE.pdf

I don't think engine has been started yet (the performance is calculated using GT-Power), so there might be some issues with this design yet to be discovered. For example, to shield the exhaust manifolds might be difficult. I also don't know how he is going to power the dry sump pump given that the engine seems to lack a drive for that. It also lacks a drive for the alternator, but that is more easily solved by running it from a camshaft.

The manufacturing is probably the most expensive part when making an engine like this, unless you happen to have a machine shop full of CNC machining equipment.

#10 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 18 September 2007 - 15:10

A v8 is still a better design - lower cg, 2 fewer cams, better symmetry, etc

Originally posted by J. Edlund
The thesis can be downloaded, in case someone has missed that:
http://epubl.ltu.se/...EX-06099-SE.pdf

I don't think engine has been started yet (the performance is calculated using GT-Power), so there might be some issues with this design yet to be discovered. For example, to shield the exhaust manifolds might be difficult. I also don't know how he is going to power the dry sump pump given that the engine seems to lack a drive for that. It also lacks a drive for the alternator, but that is more easily solved by running it from a camshaft.

The manufacturing is probably the most expensive part when making an engine like this, unless you happen to have a machine shop full of CNC machining equipment.



#11 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 September 2007 - 16:54

Originally posted by phantom II
A v8 is still a better design - lower cg, 2 fewer cams, better symmetry, etc


It's also even firing. Longer crankshaft though.

How about a 120° V6? The same short crankshaft, even lower centre of gravity.

#12 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 18 September 2007 - 16:58

All 6s should be straight like God intended.

Originally posted by Moon Tricky


It's also even firing. Longer crankshaft though.

How about a 120° V6? The same short crankshaft, even lower centre of gravity.



#13 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 September 2007 - 17:07

Originally posted by phantom II
All 6s should be straight like God intended.

Haha good point. A 60° V12 is a thing of wonder though.

I had an idea the other day for a sort of cross between an inline 6 and a U6, inspired by Nissan's variable compression ratio engine. It occurs to me that if you made the connecting members the right length, on alternating sides, you could have two staggered vertical banks on the same crankshaft, making a package that was overall only slightly longer and wider than an inline 3, and could possibly be made with only three camshafts.

#14 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 18 September 2007 - 17:47

VW V6 Audi W 12

Originally posted by Moon Tricky

Haha good point. A 60° V12 is a thing of wonder though.

I had an idea the other day for a sort of cross between an inline 6 and a U6, inspired by Nissan's variable compression ratio engine. It occurs to me that if you made the connecting members the right length, on alternating sides, you could have two staggered vertical banks on the same crankshaft, making a package that was overall only slightly longer and wider than an inline 3, and could possibly be made with only three camshafts.



#15 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 18 September 2007 - 18:01

Originally posted by phantom II
VW V6 Audi W 12


Yeah kind of like the VW VR6, only with both cylinder banks exactly vertical. The crankshaft in the Nissan VCR engine isn't directly beneath the cylinder, it's offset to one side, you see. Like this:
Posted Image
only adjusted for a slightly wider sideways offset.

#16 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 19 September 2007 - 10:36

Originally posted by phantom II
A v8 is still a better design - lower cg, 2 fewer cams, better symmetry, etc


Actually, I was thinking about the centre of gravity last night. If a complete cylinder arrangement has a centre of gravity a distance L from the crankshaft axis, the height of the centre of gravity, h, for various engine layouts is:

Inline: h = L (obviously)

60° V: h=(2Lcos 30° )/2 = 0.866L

3 bank 40° W: h=(2Lcos 40° +L)/3 = 0.844L

90° V: h=(2Lcos 45° )/2 = 0.7071L

3 bank 60° W: h=(2Lcos 60° +L)/3 = 2/3 L = 0.666L

120° V: h=(2Lcos 60° )/2 = 0.5L

So a 3 bank 60° W engine actually has a lower centre of gravity than a 90° V engine. As for the symmetry, I'm not sure what you mean. The 60° W can be easily balanced just with counterweights on the crankshaft, exactly as for a 90° V.

The only problem I have with the W9 is that it isn't even firing. A 3 bank W12 like the Napier Lion would be though, and it surprises me there aren't more engines with this configuration.

#17 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 September 2007 - 13:07

Originally posted by Moon Tricky


I had an idea the other day for a sort of cross between an inline 6 and a U6, inspired by Nissan's variable compression ratio engine. It occurs to me that if you made the connecting members the right length, on alternating sides, you could have two staggered vertical banks on the same crankshaft, making a package that was overall only slightly longer and wider than an inline 3, and could possibly be made with only three camshafts.


I think you would be interested to read up about the Lancia Fulvia V4.

#18 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 19 September 2007 - 13:34

Originally posted by cheapracer

I think you would be interested to read up about the Lancia Fulvia V4.


Yeah, interesting. I'd like to know how they managed to get the V angle so narrow.

#19 macoran

macoran
  • Member

  • 3,989 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 19 September 2007 - 19:02

Originally posted by J. Edlund
The thesis can be downloaded, in case someone has missed that:
http://epubl.ltu.se/...EX-06099-SE.pdf


I don't seem to be getting any sketches/drawings/figures.
Am I doing something wrong ?

I have full Acrobat 5.0, not only the Reader.

Advertisement

#20 robroy

robroy
  • Member

  • 200 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 19 September 2007 - 19:25

Originally posted by Moon Tricky


Yeah, interesting. I'd like to know how they managed to get the V angle so narrow.


There are some pics here: http://www.viva-lanc...om/huib/sor.htm

and some cutaway drawings on www.carsfromitaly.net if you follow the links through to Lancia models then Fulvia.

A beautiful engine IMHO.

#21 TIPO61

TIPO61
  • Member

  • 598 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 19 September 2007 - 23:12

Originally posted by Moon Tricky


It's also even firing. Longer crankshaft though.

How about a 120° V6? The same short crankshaft, even lower centre of gravity.


See Ferrari (sharknose) 156 from 1961. Worked like a champ. Was one.

#22 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 20 September 2007 - 01:25

Maybe I'm jaded because this guy has done something I'd like to do (build "my own" engine from scratch) but I'm truly surprised at most of the reactions here. "Bah, ain't nothing". "It's got no sump drive!" "there's better". **** me gently. Any of you ever design and build your own engine that was comprised of all your own parts? I mean, short of...well, by the looks of it, short of perhaps the bearings and the bolts, this whole shee-bang are parts that were custom made for this engine, to his specs. I don't care if the OEM small block in your boy racer car is a "better design" - you didn't ****ing design it, and you sure can't lay claim to the bulk of the parts in it either.

And, not for nothing but I'm going to guess that the folks that engineered and built this project, probably didn't forget the god damned oil pump drive.

This is a tough crowd.

#23 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 20 September 2007 - 09:50

Originally posted by Canuck
Maybe I'm jaded because this guy has done something I'd like to do (build "my own" engine from scratch) but I'm truly surprised at most of the reactions here.


I'm glad somebody else said this. I was beginning to wonder if I'd committed some sort of faux pas.

Although it is a bit disappointing that there doesn't seem to be any evidence on the website that he's actually tested the thing, but there doesn't seem much point building an engine if you don't intend to run it. Perhaps he is testing it as we speak.

#24 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 September 2007 - 11:49

Originally posted by Canuck
Maybe I'm jaded because this guy has done something I'd like to do (build "my own" engine from scratch) but I'm truly surprised at most of the reactions here. "Bah, ain't nothing". "It's got no sump drive!" "there's better". **** me gently. Any of you ever design and build your own engine that was comprised of all your own parts? I mean, short of...well, by the looks of it, short of perhaps the bearings and the bolts, this whole shee-bang are parts that were custom made for this engine, to his specs. I don't care if the OEM small block in your boy racer car is a "better design" - you didn't ****ing design it, and you sure can't lay claim to the bulk of the parts in it either.

And, not for nothing but I'm going to guess that the folks that engineered and built this project, probably didn't forget the god damned oil pump drive.

This is a tough crowd.


Actually I have done nothing to this scale, married early, 3 kids and a house kind of rob one of the chance to actually afford the time (let alone money) to complete my various designs, but I have done my fair share of mods from crank swapping to head swapping. When I was 13 years old I ground the back of the cam of my SL70 Honda down by hand on a bench grinder to get more lift (my very first mod), I bet this Guy barely got his hands dirty and paid every step of the way.

I'm thinking the GD oil pump will be run by a toothed belt later.

I'm also thinking that most parts were within an available specific spec range, you would have to be a clown to do otherwise or very rich. I believe I can get that crank made from scratch (billet) for about $1000 USD by the way.

Maybe it is a tough crowd, but whats the purpose of the engine? - this engine just seems to be a "because I wanted too", whereas most engine builders have a specific reason - usually racing of course.

Now if you want a real "I built it myself in my own workshop" engine, I refer you to John Britten, built his own and conquered the world. Then there's Brian Hart, even a few people now sticking a few Suzuki GSXR 1300's together getting as good bhp per litre (I think) at a cheaper price.

#25 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 20 September 2007 - 12:34

Originally posted by cheapracer
I bet this Guy barely got his hands dirty and paid every step of the way.


It's what I'd do! In fact, it's what I will be doing if I manage to get funding for my CVT.


Maybe it is a tough crowd, but whats the purpose of the engine? - this engine just seems to be a "because I wanted too", whereas most engine builders have a specific reason - usually racing of course.


It seems vaguely intended as a racing engine, but not for any particular race or racing vehicle. It's largely an academic study, I think, being a Masters Thesis and all that. Personally, I'm intrigued by the W9 layout as I've never seen that before.

#26 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 20 September 2007 - 15:40

I reserve comment until the real clever guys speak. I expect Edlund to do better. Then there is Engine guy, Greg, Marion, RDV and one or two others. Their silence on this engine may speaks volumes about the hair brained project.. My thesis at college was a V4 sohc (C+). To avoid ridicule, it will not be published here. What ever the comments by the right honorable members mentioned above are, will immediately become my position which I will claim to be my own.
My focus would be on the crankshaft for a myriad of problems. My money is on the LS7 for engine design brilliance if the primary consideration was cost. My interest is in how they got 36 more HP and better fuel efficiency from the new LS 3 as found in the 08 Vette.
If F1 was open design and engine size limited to 2.4 liters and no pit stops over two hours or 200 miles, what configuration would prevail? Certainly not what we have here.



Originally posted by Canuck
This is a tough crowd.



#27 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 20 September 2007 - 23:16

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I believe it's technically superior to everything else. I would ****ing hope that GM, with a room full of PhDs, a gazillion dollars and an equally vast amount of experience would develop something better than one lone engineer's private effort. I don't expect it to be Veyron-level perfect, but it's not yet another Duece with a small block in it either.

I'm well aware of Britten - the undeniable champion of all home-builders. There's no exaggeration in anything you've said there, if anything you've down-played it. That man truly built things from start to finish - from buying carbon fibre thread to turn into the "frame", to casting the cases in his wife's ceramic kiln and dumping the mold in the pool - hard to be any more built-at-home than that.

I thought in a forum full of gearheads, hanging out in the tech-forum specifically, that there'd be more appreciation for something like this. Obviously I have my head up my ass.

#28 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 21 September 2007 - 00:20

I think the project is a paddlewheel showboat. It kind of irritates me to look at it.

#29 Ninja2b

Ninja2b
  • Member

  • 630 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 21 September 2007 - 10:27

I'm with Canuck - I think the project is amazing. I had a quick flick through the thesis there, seems that the purpose was to combine the unversities methods for modelling the different systems into an entire engine design / analysis. Pretty impressive achievement, especially given the timescale and the fact that this was a university project.

#30 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 September 2007 - 12:43

Originally posted by Canuck
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I believe it's technically superior to everything else. I would ****ing hope that GM, with a room full of PhDs, a gazillion dollars and an equally vast amount of experience would develop something better than one lone engineer's private effort. I don't expect it to be Veyron-level perfect, but it's not yet another Duece with a small block in it either.

I thought in a forum full of gearheads, hanging out in the tech-forum specifically, that there'd be more appreciation for something like this. Obviously I have my head up my ass.


No you dont, just, and with due respect, maybe you havent been around as long as some of the "gearheads".

I assure you GM, Ford etc have seen and done much more before they throw them in the crusher along with the drawings (and possibly the people who drew them according to some conspirasyists).

#31 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 September 2007 - 12:54

Originally posted by phantom II

If F1 was open design and engine size limited to 2.4 liters and no pit stops over two hours or 200 miles, what configuration would prevail? Certainly not what we have here.


FWIW 300 - 330 cc per cylinder is said to be the optimum - why the 3.0 formula V10's were best and everyone was happy with the 2.4's being 8's which, as much for aero considerations, everyone has V8's.

#32 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 21 September 2007 - 13:10

Originally posted by cheapracer
FWIW 300 - 330 cc per cylinder is said to be the optimum - why the 3.0 formula V10's were best and everyone was happy with the 2.4's being 8's which, as much for aero considerations, everyone has V8's.

I'd think a 2.4L rotary would make the grade before a V8, and we'd probably see 8-wheeled cars with huge tunnels and so on. Probably a little too fast for human piloting.

#33 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 21 September 2007 - 13:25

The engine is pretty, but it sort of reminds me of the paper mache volcano of questionable provenance at the junior high science fair.

#34 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 September 2007 - 13:41

Originally posted by imaginesix
I'd think a 2.4L rotary would make the grade before a V8, and we'd probably see 8-wheeled cars with huge tunnels and so on. Probably a little too fast for human piloting.



Well we have some comparisons, the Le Mans winner was 2.6 litre and had 700 hp, those who know rotarys well will tell you theres not much more to be had and poor fuel consumption as well. One advantage for racing but to my disgust, is that the crankshaft is in the center of the engine which raises the gearbox being an advantage for aero's. However if you are 17 years old and putting a 12A into your Datsun 1000 coupe, you find you have to cut out and refabricate the tranny tunnel because the gearbox is that much higher. Makes for a nice stubby gear lever though ;)

#35 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 21 September 2007 - 14:23

Originally posted by cheapracer
Well we have some comparisons, the Le Mans winner was 2.6 litre and had 700 hp, those who know rotarys well will tell you theres not much more to be had and poor fuel consumption as well.


I'd like to know what makes their fuel consumption so poor. My main concern would be geometrical. They're surely quite tall with a high centre of gravity.

Does anybody ever mount an inline engine with the cylinders laid horizontally?

#36 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 21 September 2007 - 16:24

Originally posted by Moon Tricky
I'd like to know what makes their fuel consumption so poor.

Surface to volume ratio.

Does anybody ever mount an inline engine with the cylinders laid horizontally?

Sure. In a few Indy roadsters the Offy was laid down on its side. This was called a "laydown." Also, a number of package cars (aka delivery van, aka stand-and-drive) and city buses in the '30s-'40s used inline, horizontal engines so the drivetrain would fit under the floor. Both Mid-engined and rear-engined varieties. Some were a modular subframe deal so the power unit could slide out for repair or replacement.

#37 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 September 2007 - 16:31

This 9 cylinder certainly is a very compact configuration for longitudinal mounting especially for mid-rear engine cars and the center of gravity should be close to a 60 degree vee 12. I would love to hear it run.

:cool:

#38 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 21 September 2007 - 16:37

Originally posted by Moon Tricky

I want to hear the sound it makes.


That can only occur if it falls off its plinth.

#39 phantom II

phantom II
  • Member

  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 21 September 2007 - 16:47

It looks a lot like a boat anchor. Perhaps a marine application is called for.

Plinth? :confused:

Originally posted by McGuire


That can only occur if it falls off its plinth.



Advertisement

#40 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 21 September 2007 - 16:56

Originally posted by phantom II
It looks a lot like a boat anchor. Perhaps a marine application is called for.

Plinth? :confused:


I think what the honourable Mr McGuire is implying is that it now only serves as a display piece in the lobby of the university's engineering department building. Sadly, I suspect he may be right.

#41 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 21 September 2007 - 17:20

Originally posted by phantom II
Plinth? :confused:


Posted Image

#42 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 22 September 2007 - 15:23

Originally posted by McGuire


That can only occur if it falls off its plinth.


:rotfl:

#43 LMP900

LMP900
  • Member

  • 182 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 22 September 2007 - 16:13

Originally posted by Canuck
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I believe it's technically superior to everything else. I would ****ing hope that GM, with a room full of PhDs, a gazillion dollars and an equally vast amount of experience would develop something better than one lone engineer's private effort. I don't expect it to be Veyron-level perfect, but it's not yet another Duece with a small block in it either.

I'm well aware of Britten - the undeniable champion of all home-builders. There's no exaggeration in anything you've said there, if anything you've down-played it. That man truly built things from start to finish - from buying carbon fibre thread to turn into the "frame", to casting the cases in his wife's ceramic kiln and dumping the mold in the pool - hard to be any more built-at-home than that.

I thought in a forum full of gearheads, hanging out in the tech-forum specifically, that there'd be more appreciation for something like this. Obviously I have my head up my ass.


I'm with you. At every level - design, modelling, manufacture, project management - it's a great achievement for a young engineer. Unless, of course, it is like the papier-mache volcano.

#44 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 22 September 2007 - 22:08

Originally posted by McGuire
The engine is pretty, but it sort of reminds me of the paper mache volcano of questionable provenance at the junior high science fair.

I think the project is a paddlewheel showboat. It kind of irritates me to look at it.

I understand the volcano allusion, but the showboat thing escapes me. Are you saying this is nothing more than ego-stroking public masturbation. How is that different than the work of the Boyd Coddingtons of the world, or perhaps Phat-um building 'glass cars of questionable provenance in his garage?

And Cheapracer - at only 35, I'll assume there are other gearheads that have been around more than I - this I don't take as some sort of insult. However, the notion that I must, as I experience life, mutate an attitude of wonder and appreciation to one of derision and dismissal is (insulting). The critiscisms levelled here seem to be that 1) it doesn't out-strip current engine configurations and technology in any significant fashion, 2) it's probably really expensive to do that, and 3) that smarmy little **** probably didn't even get his hands dirty. Let me address them from the perspective that allows me to appreciate the project.

1) Since when is a private project required to exceed the knowledge and resources of countless OEMs?
2) Doing something different usually is. The further you stray off the beaten path, the more it's going to cost. Still, all told I'll bet you could build two of them for the price of Phatom's Z06.
3) Given that Atom Racing appears to be a non-dealership, aftermarket motorcycle hotrod shop, I'll lay down real money that says he did get his hands dirty. He may not have machined the parts, but I'll bet he put them together. Mahle builds my pistons, Andrews machines my camshafts (Andrews machine everyone's camshafts), Manley makes my valves and S&S makes my crankshaft parts. These are some of the parts I've had manufactured to my specifications for various projects and I guarantee you that none of my vendors put the parts together for me. Think of all the countless reality-TV shows centered on the Harley/chopper/whatever you want to call them. Despite the hundreds of bikes on thousands of hours of programming, we've yet to see anyone build their own engine from scratch. Frames, sheetmetal, wheels - by the dozen, but never a one-of (not mis-spelled), ground-up, in-house engine.

I'm thinking there's a whole lot of sour grapes on the part of some and worn-out jaded perspectives on others. How can you call yourself a gearhead and not appreciate a project like this for what it is? It's like saying the Ariel Atom sucks donkey dick because the Veyron has a proper body and it's still faster.

#45 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 23 September 2007 - 12:01

Originally posted by Canuck

I understand the volcano allusion, but the showboat thing escapes me. Are you saying this is nothing more than ego-stroking public masturbation. How is that different than the work of the Boyd Coddingtons of the world, or perhaps Phat-um building 'glass cars of questionable provenance in his garage?


Funny you should mention Boyd as this engine did remind me of high-end hot rod stuff with all the billet and blue anodizing. Most of that stuff actually runs, however.

This was a master's thesis project in mechanical engineering. I guess I would be more impressed if it had an oilstain on it somewhere, or maybe even a connecting rod sticking out the side. It's really pretty, but what was actually learned or accomplished in the construction of this engine, and by whom?

#46 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 September 2007 - 12:13

Originally posted by Canuck

. However, the notion that I must, as I experience life, mutate an attitude of wonder and appreciation to one of derision and dismissal is (insulting).

How can you call yourself a gearhead and not appreciate a project like this for what it is? It's like saying the Ariel Atom sucks donkey dick because the Veyron has a proper body and it's still faster.


No your mistaken, sorry if you got the wrong impression, I was just alluding towards a lot of people here have "been there, done that" veing the reason why no ones fainting about it.

I love the Ariel concept and would own 1 way before I would have a Bug.

My purpose here isnt to diss you.

#47 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 23 September 2007 - 13:24

Originally posted by cheapracer

I love the Ariel concept and would own 1 way before I would have a Bug.


I could afford one way before I could afford a Bug, that's for sure.

#48 McGuire

McGuire
  • Member

  • 9,218 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 23 September 2007 - 15:23

Originally posted by Canuck

I'm thinking there's a whole lot of sour grapes on the part of some and worn-out jaded perspectives on others. How can you call yourself a gearhead and not appreciate a project like this for what it is?


Okay, so what is it?

#49 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 September 2007 - 18:26

I too can afford an Atom well before the Veyron but that in no way takes away my appreciation (and desire for) either. I see no reason apart from sheer economics that I can't have both in my stables and enjoy the hell out of each of them. If I could own only one however, the Veyron is the easy choice.

I don't know that it does or doesn't run. I agree that the project becomes that much cooler if it runs, and that much more so if it runs properly and as predicted. Still doesnt' remove it's existing cool factor in my mind. What was learned? How should I know? I skimmed the thesis and obviously wasn't involved in any fashion. My guess here is that the student did all the learning however which is, for me at least, a highly enviable position to hold. I'd hazard a guess this project has put him light-years ahead of most gearheads/tuners/boy-racers in their understanding of the ICE. That all by itself makes the project 100% worthwhile from my perspective, but then that's a trait of my "type" - to pursue an understanding of complex systems and solutions with no weight as to their usefullness or relevance.

It goes without saying I don't understand your conclusions - I clearly have no concept of your perpsectives either. If you told me that someone here built their own engine from scratch, I'd be equally impressed - and from scratch doesn't mean using off the shelf bits that you assembled on your own. Having said that, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say that nobody that frequents this forum (the tech forum - I don't read any of the others here) has engineered, designed and built "their" engine from scratch. By "their" I mean they didn't clone an existing design which is not to say you can't have a V-8 with SBC bore spacing. The qualifications are simple: 1) engineered in bulk by you - assistance is fine but you did the work and learned the knowledge; 2) actually built, not just a CAD/engineering document; 3) assembled by you; 4) financed by you and not Ford/Cosworth/Nissan or any other OEM or tier 1 supplier.

The notion that lots of folks here (some?) have already been there and done that I think is a mistaken one. I admire the work this man did to make the project a reality - this is not some pie-in-the-sky please fund my neurosis new engine project, it's real. It, on the surface at least, appears to be a functional prototype. Bravo. He may not be Britten, but neither am I, and I'll bet, neither are you (being the inclusive, sweeping you, not a particular individual), Malbeare being the one possible exception I know of.

#50 Moon Tricky

Moon Tricky
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 23 September 2007 - 20:59

Originally posted by Canuck
I too can afford an Atom well before the Veyron but that in no way takes away my appreciation (and desire for) either. I see no reason apart from sheer economics that I can't have both in my stables and enjoy the hell out of each of them. If I could own only one however, the Veyron is the easy choice.


I'd rather have an Atom and get a body put on it. The Veyron is a terribly ugly car, if you ask me. If I could have absolutely any car I wanted, I think it would be the Lamborghini Murcielago.