Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Koenigsegg


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#51 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,031 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:39

points and condenser work very well on all IC engines - why bother with the added cost and complexity of electronic ignition
Oh my god - the cost of building an ecu to run something as unimportant as ignition timing - the OEM's will never do that in a million years !

Advertisement

#52 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 12:42

[quote name='Canuck' date='Mar 5 2013, 16:23' post='6153229']
They the supplier or they the individual who schleps for the supplier?

No - it was the Chief Engineer of New Product Development of an extremely large and well-known US company. As an example of what they regarded as outlandish - He (and the rest of his engineers apparently) also regarded the Audi lobe-swapping system with a mixture of amazement and horror (and, believe it or not, hilarity) at how a company like Audi could put such a complex arrangement into full-scale production. They were searching for the simplest possible lobe-swapping system at the time and the Audi system to them seemed impossibly complicated.

I actually quite like the Audi system - it is very clever - and as far as I know it is the first time such a system has been suggested - although I think it is always a little unwise to put slidable cam lobes on a splined shaft - they invariably wear the splines quickly. The Audi system has also lead a University transmission research group in the US to consider using the same principle of a precisely timed axial movement in a "seamless" shift gearbox where the gears are shifted at the exact time to allow an uninterrupted flow of torque. So there is the (remote) possibility of a genuine "seamless" gearbox where the gears really are never disengaged that even 24G would believe.

What do they say about teaching pigs to sing? - a pig that has been taught to sing would quite an accomplishment I would have thought.

On the point about reading papers etc. - I suspect that many people on this forum think that it makes them look very clever to quote references to various learned papers when they have little or no idea just what the paper is about. And to be fair I don't know if you (Canuck) is one of these people or not. (But people from Canadia are pretty dumb I've heard).

#53 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 March 2013 - 13:07

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



No Question? Surely you have some vague doubts? If you are so sure perhaps you could suggest a rough timetable as to when pneumatic valve gear will be in common use? I say never - at least not in the next 20 years or so - and even then it may be a system that only superficially resembles the one in question.

I saw a pneumatic-valved engine running a few years ago at research centre - it ran OK but was very RPM-limited. One of the group told me that the main thing they had learned was that there were fundamental problems that appeared to be insoluble no matter how much effort was expended. And the papers I have actually read on the subject tend to say much the same thing.

So - a little wager perhaps? I say there will never be a pneumatic system ever in production use. What do you say? - pneumatic valves in widespread use in one year? two years? Five? Ten? In the future sometime doesn't count, or the next 50 years etc.

And remember - this wager applies to pneumatic systems only. Full ECU control of all valve events is almost certainly coming in some form - whether it is mechanical or "camless" is debatable - but it very likely won't be pneumatic.


#54 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 March 2013 - 00:03

I won't be betting on what the winning system will be, only that full ECU control of individual valve events will come. That definition pretty much rules out a mechanical system leaving electric, hydraulic and pneumatic. Manolis' mechanical/hydraulic systems look promising although the range of possible event timings is limited by cam lobe phasing. Cargine's system, although pneumatic, uses a hydraulic latching system and valve position feedback via optical sensors. These two features are probably key to solving the "fundamental problems that appeared to be insoluble no matter how much effort was expended".

Cargine is the best system I have seen so far and for me is the front runner. 50:50 the system will be available on a road car (if only a Koenigsegg) within 5 years and a mass produced car within 10.

#55 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:55

I won't be betting on what the winning system will be, only that full ECU control of individual valve events will come. That definition pretty much rules out a mechanical system leaving electric, hydraulic and pneumatic. Manolis' mechanical/hydraulic systems look promising although the range of possible event timings is limited by cam lobe phasing. Cargine's system, although pneumatic, uses a hydraulic latching system and valve position feedback via optical sensors. These two features are probably key to solving the "fundamental problems that appeared to be insoluble no matter how much effort was expended".

Cargine is the best system I have seen so far and for me is the front runner. 50:50 the system will be available on a road car (if only a Koenigsegg) within 5 years and a mass produced car within 10.


Actually I thought you you were quite sure that the winning system would be pneumatic. The above statement seems then to be a reasonable assessment of the situation. Although I would tend to disagree with the need for control over "individual" valve events - this is firmly in the "diminishing returns" category - that is; it is not really worth the trouble.

You probably don't want to be reminded but you had similar unbridled and fervent enthusiasm for the Bishop Rotary Valve as you do for the Cargine/Koenigsegg system. The BRV was clearly never going to ever work in any useful way - in fact it was one of the ugliest and clumsiest attempts at a rotary valve design I have ever seen.

I would suggest that if the Koenigsegg name wasn't associated with the Cargine pneumatic system it would have sunk without trace. No doubt Mr. K himself will make a few million dollars out of the Cargine system - but it will still disappear without trace before long. I would be inclined to bet that it will never even be used in any future production version of the Koenigsegg car.

#56 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:02

I am in fact leaning towards the winning system being pneumatic - partly because Cargine seems to have solved the problems.

Engine management systems have all developed towards individual control of injection events, spark events, ignition dwell events and the benefits are nowhere near as dramatic as for valve control. Benefits not fully realisable without independent control of individual valve events (opening and closing) per cylinder include:
1. Elimination of intake pumping losses
2. Throttle-less operation
3. Cylinder deactivation
4. Cylinder skip-firing (in multiples of 360 deg ie 1/2 cycle)
5. De-compression for starting
6. Individual cylinder optimisation for knock vs spark advance
7. Extra valve opening events for EGR etc
8. Control of in-cylinder turbulence by adjusting phasing of multiple intake valves
9. Operating engine as a compressor or air motor
10. Engine size reduction by elimination of valve gear, camshaft and drive

The BRV is a superior engine breathing system, without question the ultimate rotary valve to date and would have appeared in F1 but for an overnight rule change. That doesn't mean it belongs on every production car.

A look around the Cargine website doesn't reveal any "suckers" who have lined up to lose their money. There is no link asking for investors. The major partners are Koenigsegg and AVL. If you know anything about AVL, you would find it significant that they have been involved with the project for several years and are still listed as a "Corporate partner"

#57 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 March 2013 - 23:28

Does anyone know if a Cargine type system is allowed in the current or 2014 F1 rules?

Under the 2014 formula, the system would offer significant benefits. The turbo compound engine would benefit from a host of valve timing strategies in addition to those applicable to road going NA applications. For example, varying valve timing can adjust the balance of energy flows between the reciprocating engine and the recovery turbine (vital for controlling the energy level in the storage device/battery) or to reduce turbo spool-up time.

#58 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,718 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:08

http://www.formula1....s/8699/fia.html

These are allegedly the tech regulations pertaining to F1 engines. last year's I assume. I see nothing specific at first glance that would prohibit camless valve actuation, but for every published regulation there are apparently pages of secret "clarifications" based on inquiries from teams so we aren't privy to the actual regulations in play in F1. The published regulations are mostly just theater for the public so they can feel included.

Does anyone think for a moment a disruptive technology that threatened the stability of the sport would actually be allowed to race? Some ad hoc interpretation of existing rules or an emergency update of the regulations banning any such innovation would probably ensue if a team were to be impertinent enough to show up at a race with a camless engine without advising the FIA in advance so they could quietly put a stop to it behind the scenes.

#59 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:24

[quote name='gruntguru' date='Mar 6 2013, 17:02' post='6154384']
I am in fact leaning towards the winning system being pneumatic - partly because Cargine seems to have solved the problems.

Engine management systems have all developed towards individual control of injection events, spark events, ignition dwell events and the benefits are nowhere near as dramatic as for valve control. Benefits not fully realisable without independent control of individual valve events (opening and closing) per cylinder include:
1. Elimination of intake pumping losses
2. Throttle-less operation
3. Cylinder deactivation
4. Cylinder skip-firing (in multiples of 360 deg ie 1/2 cycle)
5. De-compression for starting
6. Individual cylinder optimisation for knock vs spark advance
7. Extra valve opening events for EGR etc
8. Control of in-cylinder turbulence by adjusting phasing of multiple intake valves
9. Operating engine as a compressor or air motor
10. Engine size reduction by elimination of valve gear, camshaft and drive


An interesting list - but I suspect most don't need individual valve control - just overall valve control. Surely "individual cylinder optimisation" would need individual sensors on each cylinder?

Something I am interested in (but you haven't mentioned) is swapping between 2 and 4-cycle operation. You don't like it? Or did you forget to put it on the list?

I still think a lot of these things are firmly in the "diminishing returns" category. But I suppose once they are in the engine computer you don't have to worry about them anymore - just change the computer if something goes wrong.

Also - if you have achieved item 2. - items 1., 3., 4., and 5. are probably unnecessary. But I suppose, as I mentioned above, once these things are programmed into the computer, it is no trouble to do what you like with the valve events. (Jeez - sounds like I am becoming a supporter of "camless" - possibly I am but only if it works simply and perfectly).







Advertisement

#60 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:28

[quote name='gruntguru' date='Mar 7 2013, 10:28' post='6155494']
Does anyone know if a Cargine type system is allowed in the current or 2014 F1 rules?

I rearlize you love Cargine/pneumatic valve control - but surely it won't run at 18,000 RPM?

Even simple cam-phasing is banned in F1 - it's hard to imagine they would allow Cargine-type systems. Might be legal in MotoGP maybe?

#61 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:31

I rearlize you love Cargine/pneumatic valve control - but surely it won't run at 18,000 RPM?

Cargine claims it will (in the first linked video)

Even simple cam-phasing is banned in F1 - it's hard to imagine they would allow Cargine-type systems. Might be legal in MotoGP maybe?

If cam phasing is banned, that would include ECU valve actuation.

#62 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,718 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:59

Motorsport needs a new pinnacle. F1 has gotten lame.

#63 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 March 2013 - 05:46

Surely "individual cylinder optimisation" would need individual sensors on each cylinder?

A single knock sensor gives individual cylinder information.
A crankshaft position sensor contains individual cylinder torque information (up to about 6 cyl engines)

Something I am interested in (but you haven't mentioned) is swapping between 2 and 4-cycle operation. You don't like it? Or did you forget to put it on the list?

Not much use for road going SI engines - emissions and efficiency suffer.

I still think a lot of these things are firmly in the "diminishing returns" category.

Many of them are individually capable of fuel savings of 5% or more. Cargine's claim of 20% improvement on their Saab engine is totally realistic and that is just a development hack originally designed for cams.

Also - if you have achieved item 2. - items 1., 3., 4., and 5. are probably unnecessary.

1 follows from 2 but could be implemented without 2.
3 and 4 permit "firing" cycles to be performed at the most efficient MEP (approx 80% of peak) while running the engine at much lighter load.
5 reduces cost, volume and mass of starter motor, battery, cables etc
6, 7 and 8 all useful tools for improving efficiency and emissions
9 Who knows? Cargine claims their pneumatic hybrid concept is feasible.
10 has obvious (and numerous "not-so-obvious") benefits.

#64 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,039 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 March 2013 - 05:47

Motorsport needs a new pinnacle. F1 has gotten lame.

:up: YEP.

#65 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 238 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:47

:up: YEP.

absalutly agree

#66 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 April 2013 - 17:16

http://www.youtube.c...A...Wnf&index=1

Latest video. About the gearbox and diff.

And here is a article
http://www.speedhunt...ide-koenigsegg/

Edited by MatsNorway, 04 April 2013 - 17:25.


#67 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 February 2014 - 21:27

http://www.topgear.c...show-2014-02-10

 

Next itteration of the Koenigsegg claims to have 1300hp+ :eek:


Edited by MatsNorway, 10 February 2014 - 21:31.


#68 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 785 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:33

Any news on K's pneumatic valve system? It never sounded very likely to me.