Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Koenigsegg


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 18:24



A interesting look into the technology used to make a Koenigsegg

They make a impressive amount of their own parts. Only thing i did not really understand was why they opted to go tube frame from the front tub to the back. Sounds and looked (did not study it) doable to me. And the amount of parts they made of carbon fibre was extremely high.

I hope to hear some opinions about the triplex damper and the clutch. The triplex i think could easily be made intelligent and made work only in relation to throttle response and so on.
http://www.zerotohun...1/triplex_1.jpg

http://superbinforma...vra_2012_11.jpg

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 March 2013 - 12:37.


Advertisement

#2 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 February 2013 - 19:15

Thanks for the link, Mats, very interesting. I want one!

#3 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 February 2013 - 19:22

Thanks for the link, Mats, very interesting. I want one!


Make sure to look at the movie that inspired him to make the koenigsegg. It was one of my childhood favorites. And i too probably have a lot of my interest due to that movie. The puns and so on is probably gone or weakened due to the translation but.. still good fun i would think. I want one too.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 February 2013 - 19:32.


#4 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:08

There was a raffle for one (a CCX) here a few years ago - first (only) time I've ever bought a $100 raffle ticket. Needless to say I didn't win or you'd have read about the carnage in the news but the winner? He lived here - Norman Wells, NWT, Canada. Having been up there with the Coast Guard, I can attest to the "no roads" status. It's not quite no roads - there's probably 20km all together and you can't drive into or out of there. And most of that 20km isn't paved...actually I don't recall any being paved at all. He opted for the million dollar cash alternative - go figure. No idea if the car was ever in the country or not.

Edited by Canuck, 06 February 2013 - 06:08.


#5 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 February 2013 - 20:51

Abovementioned video is only a part of a total of six videos.

Here is the playlist for all of the episodes. One is spesific about the triplex suspention (middle damper)
http://www.youtube.c...07BouKhEhyFuWnf

The normal dampers seems to have two springs. one tiny tiny one and the bigger normal one.

Edited by MatsNorway, 06 February 2013 - 21:22.


#6 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 14 February 2013 - 15:56



I hope to hear some opinions about the triplex damper and the clutch. The triplex i think could easily be made intelligent and made work only in relation to throttle response and so on.

Interesting thought, made to work with torque sensors to minimize traction loss with wide tyres on camber changes while adjusting for more roll camber on double wishbone. A lot more simple than having to make them work on two individual springs. Its actually another interpretation of the third spring, I think Ferrari use to use a SACHS damper mounted very similarly to this on their F1 cars.

Posted Image Posted Image



:cool:

Edited by Powersteer, 14 February 2013 - 16:02.


#7 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 February 2013 - 18:00

Interesting thought, made to work with torque sensors to minimize traction loss with wide tyres


Regarding the other changes i think you will struggle do to more than tighten the damping on power input.

Koenigsegg probably recognises the potential it has and with their limited research abilities they need some time before that can arrive.

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 February 2013 - 18:00.


#8 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 16 February 2013 - 15:18

Longitudinal forces sensors to a computer to control damper valves...or an air spring.

:cool:

#9 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 22 February 2013 - 20:39

Longitudinal forces sensors to a computer to control damper valves...

:cool:


And that.. as in doable. :)

The Koenisegg playlist has been expanded. here is the current first. Seems they are looking into Pnumatic valves. First production engine if so? I think i read somewhere that Ferrari was looking into it for their next supercar.
https://www.youtube....0...Wnf&index=1

Edited by MatsNorway, 22 February 2013 - 20:41.


#10 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 February 2013 - 06:24

That wasn't what I was expecting at all when I read pneumatic valves. I was thinking springs, they're talking actuators - doing away with the camshafts all together. Remarkable. I thought we were going to see solenoid / electric valves replace cams.

#11 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:47

That wasn't what I was expecting at all when I read pneumatic valves. I was thinking springs, they're talking actuators - doing away with the camshafts all together. Remarkable. I thought we were going to see solenoid / electric valves replace cams.


Yea. I was a tiny bit not sober.. so i haven`t been thinking about it until you said so yourself. And they claim they can save fuel with this. Thats also very impressive. Given the air usage.

Just some thinking
Perhaps the exhaust air gets used as cooling for the head? or perhaps the exhaust is in the intake to aid some air in perhaps. with a ejector trick.

I wonder if someone here is able to pull some numbers on this.

Edited by MatsNorway, 23 February 2013 - 09:59.


#12 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 23 February 2013 - 13:14


I have to say that it doesn't seem very likely. Pneumatic valves have been investgated very thoroughly over the years without much success. Maybe they can do it - we will find out soon enough I imagine.


#13 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 February 2013 - 13:47

I have to say that it doesn't seem very likely. Pneumatic valves have been investgated very thoroughly over the years without much success. Maybe they can do it - we will find out soon enough I imagine.


yea. And it was so quiet too. makes no sense.

#14 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 February 2013 - 15:34

They seemed awfully loud to me but that's a test rig on the bench and not their little SAAB mule they claim has 60,000km with them.

#15 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 February 2013 - 10:16

They seemed awfully loud to me but that's a test rig on the bench and not their little SAAB mule they claim has 60,000km with them.


I had to rewatch the video.

Its a pneumatic or spring return. In addition they seem to use the oil system to adjust lift and so on. So the pneumatic system driving it is probably fairly dumb/simple. Everything is adjusted with the hydaulics. Or so it seems.

Given the pressure needed to push the valve down and the quick release of it. One would expect it to be loud.

https://www.youtube....tailpage#t=340s

Edited by MatsNorway, 24 February 2013 - 10:23.


#16 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 24 February 2013 - 13:55

They seemed awfully loud to me but that's a test rig on the bench and not their little SAAB mule they claim has 60,000km with them.

Now, if only they had started it then maybe your initial feel might be entertained. Doesn't FIAT's multiair uses a similar system?

:cool:


#17 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:51

Now, if only they had started it then maybe your initial feel might be entertained. Doesn't FIAT's multiair uses a similar system?

:cool:


No - Multiair is still distinctly "cam" - not "camless".

#18 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 February 2013 - 20:08

Yes but what about the mechanism below the cam? Doesn't FIAT's system control an air chamber and regular spring for return...I suspect this system replaces the cam with a pump.

:cool:

#19 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:43

yes, but the "pump" is operated by the camshaft... and you have a solenoid that lets off pressure so that in effect you can limit the valve travel...

Advertisement

#20 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 01 March 2013 - 00:31

Very exciting. If these guys are as advanced as the video claims (forget the squareish lift profile) the holy grail of valve actuation could be near. Benefits not mentioned in the video include:
- Throttle-less operation
- No pumping losses
- Cylinder deactivation
- De-compression for starting (smaller starter or inbuilt air-start)

Late in the video, they mention using the engine as the pump/motor for compressed-air-hybrid operation (simply add a tank) and temporary supercharging using the hybrid system tank.

Why hasn't this happened in F1?
- Probably not permitted.
- Probably technical difficulties matching the open/close rates of F1 despite the lofty RPM claims in the video.

#21 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:08

I'm cautiously optimistic. The noise is the factor that got my attention. It's impossible to determine whether the noise is from pounding the valve into the seat (or the keeper groove) or if that's unfounded doubt. I've never motored a Ducati desmo drivetrain so perhaps they're as loud. Come to think of it, setting valve lash on hyd. lifter cams as a kid was certainly a noisy (and messy) affair.

#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:43

I'm cautiously optimistic. The noise is the factor that got my attention. It's impossible to determine whether the noise is from pounding the valve into the seat (or the keeper groove) or if that's unfounded doubt. I've never motored a Ducati desmo drivetrain so perhaps they're as loud. Come to think of it, setting valve lash on hyd. lifter cams as a kid was certainly a noisy (and messy) affair.

There are a few clues that give some comfort.
- The noise sounds quite OK and unlike a cam operated valve, the impact velocity is not a function of engine speed ie the impact velocity can be set to an optimal value (a compromise of wear rate versus sealing and carbon removal) and maintained at that value for all engine speeds. In fact it could be controlled (optimised) for various engine speeds and loads.
- The top scope trace (valve displacement) seen at 5:07 shows a normal closing profile (decelerating)
- 60,000 km is a great start for a "prototype" system.

#23 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 01 March 2013 - 22:57

I had to rewatch the video.

Its a pneumatic or spring return. In addition they seem to use the oil system to adjust lift and so on. So the pneumatic system driving it is probably fairly dumb/simple. Everything is adjusted with the hydaulics. Or so it seems.

Given the pressure needed to push the valve down and the quick release of it. One would expect it to be loud.

https://www.youtube....tailpage#t=340s


No, the valve lift is controlled by the pneumatics. There are two solenoid valves per actuator controlling the air, and a valve lift sensor. The hydraulics are used for a latch to keep the valve open and a damper to control the seating velocity at 0.5 m/s.

The system is described on page 20/21:
http://lup.lub.lu.se...fileOId=1218738

http://www.cargine.com/

#24 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:45

The noise is the factor that got my attention.


http://www.cargine.c...ns-and-answers/

There is a video - complete with sound level meter at question 9.

#25 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:51

No, the valve lift is controlled by the pneumatics. There are two solenoid valves per actuator controlling the air, and a valve lift sensor. The hydraulics are used for a latch to keep the valve open and a damper to control the seating velocity at 0.5 m/s.

The system is described on page 20/21:
http://lup.lub.lu.se...fileOId=1218738

http://www.cargine.com/

Why are you saying no?

i did not say the valve did not get its lift from pneumatics.. read again. the return is air spring or regular spring. And the hydraulics part controls the system. The pnumatics here is dumb, the variations etc. is via hydraulics.

From your own link.
"The engine used in this study is equipped
with pneumatic valve actuators that use compressed air in order to drive the valves and the motion of the valves are controlled by a combination of electronics and hydraulics"
[size=2]


Edited by MatsNorway, 02 March 2013 - 08:52.


#26 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:23



Why are you saying no?

i did not say the valve did not get its lift from pneumatics.. read again. the return is air spring or regular spring. And the hydraulics part controls the system. The pnumatics here is dumb, the variations etc. is via hydraulics.

From your own link.
"The engine used in this study is equipped
with pneumatic valve actuators that use compressed air in order to drive the valves and the motion of the valves are controlled by a combination of electronics and hydraulics"
[size=2]

And now I'm saying 'no' again.

The pneumatics are not 'dumb' and it is the pneumatics that are controlling the valve lift using the two solenoid valves, not the hydraulics as you claim. If you had read the whole thing instead of you copying and paste a part of it I think it would be very clear to you that it is the pneumatics that control the valve motion. The hydraulics simply force the valve to stay in the open position once it is there.

The operation of the system is shown in figure 26 on page 21 and is described as following

From Figure 26, it can be seen that the valve event consists of 3 sections, namely the opening period, dwell period and closing period. The opening period starts with the activation of solenoid 1, S1, which in turn pushes the corresponding spool valve. The new position of the spool valve now permits pressurized air to enter the actuator cylinder. The pressurized air pushes the actuator piston and since the valve is in direct contact with the actuator piston, it starts to open. Solenoid 2, S2, is activated in order to stop the air charging of the cylinder and the time difference between activation of S1 and activation of S2, δ1, therefore determines the valve lift. The pressurized air expands inside the actuator cylinder until it balances with the valve spring force. At the end of the opening period, the hydraulic latch is activated and the valve is prevented from returning. The hydraulic latch is active during the whole dwell period. When S1 is deactivated, the latch is disabled which in turn starts the air discharge from the actuator cylinder and the valve starts its closing period. The time difference between the deactivation of S2 and S1, δ2, must always be positive to prevent a second air filling of the actuator cylinder since this would trigger a second valve lift event. At the end of the closing period (about 3 mm before the end of valve lift) the hydraulic damper is activated, and starts to slow down the valve. In the interval 1.0 to 0.0 mm, the seating velocity is constant with a magnitude of approximately 0.5 m/s. Thereby the damper ensures a soft‐seating with a low level of noise as a result.



#27 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,057 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:24

I see now.
Koenigsegg gave me a different impression. And you can`t expect me to read 67 pages. At least not with a fever

So they adjust the air going in, to just enough needed at any time.

Would it not be a challenge to vent the air out quick enough? they do wait until the closing stage. I guess its a area with some potential.

Im going to assume they are only denying further travel with the hydraulic latch/damper and can`t hold it there with it. Like i wrongly believed.

Koenigsegg playlist has yet another video added.
https://www.youtube....07BouKhEhyFuWnf

Grunt and Edlund any comments on the triplex damper?

Edited by MatsNorway, 02 March 2013 - 12:30.


#28 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 March 2013 - 13:18


It sounds pretty diabolical in this video:



I see that Koenigsegg (who appears to be the bald bloke in this video) is also a director of Cargine. I suspect the claims for this pneumatic system are greatly exaggerated - as is most promotional material about new developments people are trying to sell.

#29 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 March 2013 - 23:08

Sounds fine to me. Have you ever heard a sixteen valve head operating with no block, cam covers, intake manifold, exhaust manifold? There's a lot of shit happening there.

Did you watch the video I linked in the Cargine Q & A? Saab 2.0 litre stock and with Cargine. Sounded much quieter.

Edited by gruntguru, 02 March 2013 - 23:13.


#30 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 March 2013 - 23:21

Have you ever heard a sixteen valve head operating with no block, cam covers, intake manifold, exhaust manifold?

Exactly what I was thinking - I can't imagine it being much quieter, plus there is the electric motor and pump.

#31 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,707 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:50

I know that a lot of people have been working on this for a long time and I would be surprised if someone like Koenigsegg is going to be the company that solves the problems that people like Renault can't get around.
The cynical side of me is looking for the "investors wanted" link on the website.

#32 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:31

I know that a lot of people have been working on this for a long time and I would be surprised if someone like Koenigsegg is going to be the company that solves the problems that people like Renault can't get around.
The cynical side of me is looking for the "investors wanted" link on the website.


Exactly.

#33 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:46

Sounds fine to me. Have you ever heard a sixteen valve head operating with no block, cam covers, intake manifold, exhaust manifold? There's a lot of shit happening there.

Did you watch the video I linked in the Cargine Q & A? Saab 2.0 litre stock and with Cargine. Sounded much quieter.


Oddly enough I have heard such a thing - plus a lot of other types of valvegear being "motored". The sound of the standard valve gear Saab seems strangely loud to me.

#34 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:10

The cynical side of me is looking for the "investors wanted" link on the website.

Any luck? :)

#35 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:12


I think the main problem with pneumatic VVT systems like the Cargine is their complexity - there are quite a few mechanical systems that can perform much the same tricks as the Cargine system (if indeed it does work as claimed) that are far simpler and consequently far more reliable. There is also the basic problem that a car left unused for some time may have lost its stored air pressure and have a flat battery etc. How would you get it running again? Cargine claim several "limp home" strategies - but presumably the main strategy would involve a tow truck. I would imagine all the current mechanical VVT system would have a limp home strategy - the main one being to act as a fixed timing system that is non-VVT.

Everybody seems to have glossed over the fact that the Cargine system needs a compressor and associated pipework etc. Presumably this is considered a mere detail - but it isn't. As an analogy - air spring systems (as in F1) are undoubtably superior at high RPM - but there are no production road-going equivalent systems (that I know of anyhow). Why isn't there any - apart from not being any better than steel springs at "normal" high RPM (not F1 RPM) there are the lack of stored air etc. problems, need for a compressor etc.

The disadvantages of the Cargine pneumatic system far outweigh any advantages it may have (and the advantages are debatable anyhow).

#36 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:42

I think the main problem with pneumatic VVT systems like the Cargine is their complexity - there are quite a few mechanical systems that can perform much the same tricks as the Cargine system (if indeed it does work as claimed) that are far simpler and consequently far more reliable. There is also the basic problem that a car left unused for some time may have lost its stored air pressure and have a flat battery etc. How would you get it running again? Cargine claim several "limp home" strategies - but presumably the main strategy would involve a tow truck. I would imagine all the current mechanical VVT system would have a limp home strategy - the main one being to act as a fixed timing system that is non-VVT.

Everybody seems to have glossed over the fact that the Cargine system needs a compressor and associated pipework etc. Presumably this is considered a mere detail - but it isn't. As an analogy - air spring systems (as in F1) are undoubtably superior at high RPM - but there are no production road-going equivalent systems (that I know of anyhow). Why isn't there any - apart from not being any better than steel springs at "normal" high RPM (not F1 RPM) there are the lack of stored air etc. problems, need for a compressor etc.

The disadvantages of the Cargine pneumatic system far outweigh any advantages it may have (and the advantages are debatable anyhow).

This is full of some of the weakest arguments I've ever read.

First - there are exactly none mechanical systems that offer the fully variable lift, duration and timing proffered by the Cargine system (assuming it works as advertised). You might want to spend the time reading that paper GG posted from the Cargine site - someone's PhD paper - that discusses the current offerings.

If your long-parked pneumatic valvetrain'd car has no air in the tank and a flat battery, you'd start it the same way you'd start any car I assume - a boost or a battery charger. Just like every other car. Worst case scenario, a boost and a connection to a compressor - perhaps your spare tire. It's not like it runs on compressed fairy farts - it's air. You note that it might limp home in non-VVT mode as if that's worse than any other limp-home mode in any current computer control system.

Why isn't the compressor a mere detail? Or the piping? Two lines connected to a valve cover that has a manifold cast into it. Oooohhhh...the insurmountable complexity! You point out that air springs have no benefit to engines operating at typical passenger car speeds, but then use the "complexity" argument as the reason why it's not implemented. Have you ever looked at Porsche's Vario-Cam plus? Or the sequential turbocharged BMWs? Variable geometry manifolds, throttle-by-wire...an effin' compressor and some piping don't exactly set themselves apart as another level of complexity.

The disadvantages (a compressor and piping, imagined re-start problems after long periods of neglect and...oh yes, a non-VVT limp home strategy that we aren't sure even exists) outweigh throttle-less operation, fully variable valve lift, duration, overlap and timing, cylinder deactivation, deactivated cylinder as air-compressor, compressed air hybrid operation. I'm afraid I disagree as I would think most do, including the numerous companies including GM, Ford, Lotus and of course Cargine that have or are all pursuing it.





#37 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 13:42

This is full of some of the weakest arguments I've ever read.

First - there are exactly none mechanical systems that offer the fully variable lift, duration and timing proffered by the Cargine system (assuming it works as advertised). You might want to spend the time reading that paper GG posted from the Cargine site - someone's PhD paper - that discusses the current offerings.

If your long-parked pneumatic valvetrain'd car has no air in the tank and a flat battery, you'd start it the same way you'd start any car I assume - a boost or a battery charger. Just like every other car. Worst case scenario, a boost and a connection to a compressor - perhaps your spare tire. It's not like it runs on compressed fairy farts - it's air. You note that it might limp home in non-VVT mode as if that's worse than any other limp-home mode in any current computer control system.

Why isn't the compressor a mere detail? Or the piping? Two lines connected to a valve cover that has a manifold cast into it. Oooohhhh...the insurmountable complexity! You point out that air springs have no benefit to engines operating at typical passenger car speeds, but then use the "complexity" argument as the reason why it's not implemented. Have you ever looked at Porsche's Vario-Cam plus? Or the sequential turbocharged BMWs? Variable geometry manifolds, throttle-by-wire...an effin' compressor and some piping don't exactly set themselves apart as another level of complexity.

The disadvantages (a compressor and piping, imagined re-start problems after long periods of neglect and...oh yes, a non-VVT limp home strategy that we aren't sure even exists) outweigh throttle-less operation, fully variable valve lift, duration, overlap and timing, cylinder deactivation, deactivated cylinder as air-compressor, compressed air hybrid operation. I'm afraid I disagree as I would think most do, including the numerous companies including GM, Ford, Lotus and of course Cargine that have or are all pursuing it.




Your arguments are weaker - and I hate everybody from Canadia.





#38 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 17:17

Your arguments are weaker - and I hate everybody from Canadia.


Wow what a retort.

I'm sorry to say his argument is a lot stronger than yours. Do you know how much power a 16v duel cam set up takes to rotate? And infanately variable cam timing and lift is the wet dream of engine designers. Your whole car is controled by computer your foot hasn't had a connection to the throttle for at least the last 6-8 years. Most cars have electronic power steering again all controled by a computer. Every system on the engine is controled and monitored by the ECU and alot of higher end cars have VCM which controls all the other aspects of the vehicle.

#39 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 04 March 2013 - 17:30

Wow what a retort.

I thought it was cool, too!

Advertisement

#40 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 20:32

can we have a hate Canadians day please

#41 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:09

can we have a hate Canadians day please


Sounds like an excellent idea.

I think electrohydraulic and electromagnetic/solenoid "camless" designs are far more likely to happen than pneumatic types - but even with these I would not hold my breath waiting for them to happen anytime soon.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 04 March 2013 - 23:16.


#42 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:34

Have to disagree KC.
Hydraulics suffer from the high inertia, high viscosity working fluid and lack the inherent "softness" of pneumatuics.
Solenoids suffer from high (electrical and mechanical) inertia and low power per unit volume occupied.

The Cargine system does not suffer from obvious technical errors and doesn't smell at all scammy. Koenigsegg has a reputation to consider for one thing.

#43 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 23:36

Your arguments are weaker - and I hate everybody from Canadia who is smarter than me. (and probably even knows how to spell Candida)

Fixed.

#44 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:26

Sounds like an excellent idea.

I think electrohydraulic and electromagnetic/solenoid "camless" designs are far more likely to happen than pneumatic types...

Why? I have to assume you haven't read the linked paper as it clearly discusses why those systems aren't workable for production - they're not as close to production as the Cargine system. The GM solenoid version suffers from slamming the valve into the seat so is used for R&D only.

The least you can do if you're going to make an argument is refute the available data instead of tossing out unqualified opinion. While I can't claim that your opinion of it's complexity is wrong (it is an opinion after all and not a fact), almost every assertion you've made was discussed and addressed in the paper.

I think what really galls me about the whole "if such-and-such an idea were feasible, the OEMs would have done it already" assertion is that it's utterly unfounded. That requires that all good ideas can only come from corporately employed engineers, as if somehow all real imagination and talent is magically snapped up upon genesis. Working from within a giant corp, I'm amazed we ever get anything done - it's often easier to buy the small competitors with the better ideas than to execute your own.

#45 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,510 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:29

Fixed.

Ah you don't know the joke. Australians come from Australia, therefore Canadians come from...

Struth even the immos like me know that one.

#46 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:35

Mate I don't even know what street Canadia is on.

#47 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:23

Have to disagree KC.
Hydraulics suffer from the high inertia, high viscosity working fluid and lack the inherent "softness" of pneumatuics.
Solenoids suffer from high (electrical and mechanical) inertia and low power per unit volume occupied.

The Cargine system does not suffer from obvious technical errors and doesn't smell at all scammy. Koenigsegg has a reputation to consider for one thing.


We will see.


In an attempt to annoy Canuck even further - I quote the immortal words of Oz's patron saint Bazza McKenzie:

All Canadians are bastards
bastards or worse
and Canadia is
the arsehole of the universe.

Note that this is a useful multi-purpose ditty that can be applied to any country you desire to denigrate.

And - No - I have not read the paper in question - I am always right so I have no need for such irrelevant material. I find it very nice being God-like in my intelligence.

#48 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:59

On a more serious note - I think the "law of diminishing returns" applies very much to "camless" (of any type) engines etc. An engine with a totally "dumb" camshaft that doesn't vary anything at all still can work extremely well.
A variable camshaft system really doesn't need to be all-singing-and-dancing. Variation of duration with RPM is useful - as is LIVC capability. I think personally variable height valve lift is not of much use and belongs firmly in the "diminishing returns" category. This can be done fairly simply with mechanical systems of various types (Manolis alone probably has half-a-dozen designs he could suggest). Needless to say I think the Helical Camshaft system is the best and simplest method of useful mechanical VVT. But even with the HC its relatively minor complexity (compared to "camless") makes it somewhat unpalatable to car makers.

As for just about every car maker (and his dog) looking seriously at "camless" I personally have communicated with at least two major makers of valvegear bits (suppliers to car makers) who think "camless" is pointless and something of a joke. In fact it is surprising just how conservative and penny-pinching these companies are - they would even be horrified just by the added cost to the car of the pneumatic system's compressor for example - let alone all the rest of the "gubbins".
And they want cam gear systems that can be applied to literally millions of engines (and for many years to come in the future) - not just a relatively few specialised engines.

#49 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,654 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:23

I personally have communicated with at least two major makers of valvegear bits (suppliers to car makers) who think "camless" is pointless and something of a joke.

They the supplier or they the individual who schleps for the supplier?

No - I have not read the paper in question

Ah. Well no point going any further then - you know what they say about teaching a pig to sing.

#50 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:09

On a more serious note - I think the "law of diminishing returns" applies very much to "camless" (of any type) engines etc. WRONG

An engine with a totally "dumb" camshaft that doesn't vary anything at all still can work extremely well. CORRECT

A variable camshaft system really doesn't need to be all-singing-and-dancing. OR EVEN PRESENT (EG MY LAWN MOWER)

Variation of duration with RPM is useful - as is LIVC capability. CORRECT

I think personally variable height valve lift is not of much use and belongs firmly in the "diminishing returns" category. Certainly less important. However the other benefits unique to camless are mostly VERY important.

This can be done fairly simply with mechanical systems of various types WRONG(Manolis alone probably has half-a-dozen designs he could suggest).

Needless to say I think the Helical Camshaft system is the best and simplest method of useful mechanical VVT. WRONG

But even with the HC its relatively minor complexity (compared to "camless") makes it somewhat unpalatable to car makers.

As for just about every car maker (and his dog) looking seriously at "camless" I personally have communicated with at least two major makers of valvegear bits (suppliers to car makers) who think "camless" is pointless and something of a joke. WRONG

In fact it is surprising just how conservative and penny-pinching these companies are - they would even be horrified just by the added cost to the car of the pneumatic system's compressor for example - let alone all the rest of the "gubbins". TRUE. But then there is a market for Prius, BMW Vanos, Even Mazda SkyActive is more expensive than the Cargine concept.

And they want cam gear systems that can be applied to literally millions of engines (and for many years to come in the future) - not just a relatively few specialised engines. Which is exactly where a universal system like Cargine wins and systems like HC lose out.

Full ECU control of all valve events will have as big an impact on SI engines as EFI or Electronic Spark Timing - No Question.

Edited by gruntguru, 05 March 2013 - 06:15.