19 replies to this topic

[ray b]

pdf on banned rotary valve F-1 motor

http://home.people.n...AutoTechBRV.pdf

you need a free viewer to open a pdf

[Wolf]

Ray- looks nice, but I don't see significant (or any!) difference to rotaty valve by I & E Brown of England. ISTR Cross also had similar rotary valves, both designs being probably some 70 years old...

Now, if one was to use 2 'single-barrel' valves of that type- that would be more practical, esp. from the point of VVT technology (1 pulley pre valve?).

I like the idea of rotary valves- they should be more efficient IMO because one doesn't need to compress the spring or push the valve in high pressure inside the cylinder. But if I was putting rotary valves on that kind of engine- I'd place it along the bank (rather than accross it) and use the other type that acts as by redirecting flow between intake and exhaust ports, rather using the valve as port.

[desmo]

Interesting, thanks. I rather like this design, seems developed well beyond the Old Cross and Aspin types I've seen photos of. F1 should be actively encouraging these sorts of developments in the sport whether because of or in spite of their unlikelihood of succeeding at that level. I'll bet if you polled the fans they'd vote for allowing innovation by a huge margin every time.

[angst]

Originally posted by desmo
Interesting, thanks. I rather like this design, seems developed well beyond the Old Cross and Aspin types I've seen photos of. F1 should be actively encouraging these sorts of developments in the sport whether because of or in spite of their unlikelihood of succeeding at that level. I'll bet if you polled the fans they'd vote for allowing innovation by a huge margin every time.

I couldn't agree more. This is exactly the sort of technology that should be encouraged in F1. Instead we have a stifling of this kind of innovation and instead allow TC, active diffs and (soon to be) active suspension, not to mention the push to pass button passing itself off as 'green' technology - all thoroughly controlled, of course.

[dancin stu]

Originally posted by angst


I couldn't agree more. This is exactly the sort of technology that should be encouraged in F1. Instead we have a stifling of this kind of innovation and instead allow TC, active diffs and (soon to be) active suspension, not to mention the push to pass button passing itself off as 'green' technology - all thoroughly controlled, of course.

TC is out of the sport at the end of next year, diffs will stay - but this is because it provides a cheaper and easier adjustment method than a mechanical diff.

I'm intrigued by the suggestion that active suspension is on it's way in, by what information have you deduced this fact?

[McGuire]

Getting "banned" is a lucky break. "Banned" sounds a lot better than "not worth a ****."

[desmo]

Originally posted by McGuire
Getting "banned" is a lucky break. "Banned" sounds a lot better than "not worth a shit."

Exactly. Where's the harm in letting this sort of thing fail publicly on it's own merit?

[angst]

Originally posted by dancin stu



TC is out of the sport at the end of next year, diffs will stay - but this is because it provides a cheaper and easier adjustment method than a mechanical diff.

I'm intrigued by the suggestion that active suspension is on it's way in, by what information have you deduced this fact?

Well, that's what Max has been chugging on about for some time, but this....


http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55951

doesn't seem to bare this out. Try this, in particular...

"2011

.....

- greater emphasis on cornering performance and handling by means of chassis, suspension, and brake management
- complete freedom to use electronics to make the car more energy-efficient (drive train, etc, management)
- possibly also free up driver-aid electronics"


2008 regulations as already published..... well you show me the bit in the 2008 regulations that 'bans' TC.

[ray b]

Originally posted by McGuire
Getting "banned" is a lucky break. "Banned" sounds a lot better than "not worth a ****."

my understanding is these type of motor have alot of problems with heat causing breakdowns
but the free breathing from the air ways with out obstructions has potential for more power
"not worth a ****." now maybe, or in the past ,
but there is a chance of that changeing with modern teck, and materials like crematic bits
that willnot change shape under high heat

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by ray b


my understanding is these type of motor have alot of problems with heat causing breakdowns
but the free breathing from the air ways with out obstructions has potential for more power
"not worth a ****." now maybe, or in the past ,
but there is a chance of that changeing with modern teck, and materials like crematic bits
that willnot change shape under high heat

Both heat and pressures will be problems. To provide a good seal when the combustion pressure go above 100 bar is usually not that simple.

Ceramics are brittle so their use in an engine is a bit like gambling; you might win but it's more likely that you lose. Ceramic parts can suddenly fail, and unlike most metal component you can't calculate an average lifetime of the component.

Current poppet valve systems provide a good peak volumetric efficiency, well over 100% so I don't think you can improve that number that much. Possebly improvements could be made at other engine speeds.

[Greg Locock]

I was intrigued by the weight saving claims. And I'd have thought that /if/ the seals can be designed correctly you might see a bit of a cost reduction over a 4 valve head. I've dealt with Bishops a few times and have always found them to be a very credible and sensible organisation.

[JLH]

I can tell you for certain that this very nearly made it into the back of a mclaren. The change in rules to single sparkplug killed it. (edited)

At the end of the day, the development I think was simply too slow compared to that in poppet valve technology at the time, and the early gains that it saw were diminished with the frantic pace of the V10's development elsewhere.



J

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by JLH
I can tell you for certain that this very nearly made it into the back of a mclaren. The change in rules to single sparkplug killed it. At the end of the day, the development I think was simply too slow compared to that in poppet valve technology at the time, and the early gains that it saw were diminished with the frantic pace of the V10's development elsewhere.

A LOT of money was poured into this by Ilmor over many years.

J

Couldn't two rotary valves per cylinder be used to overcome the issue with the single spark plug. If two rotary valves is used per cylinder this should leave some space in the middle of the cylinder for a single spark plug.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


Couldn't two rotary valves per cylinder be used to overcome the issue with the single spark plug. If two rotary valves is used per cylinder this should leave some space in the middle of the cylinder for a single spark plug.

Plus one can use one for intake and one for exhaust (might improve efficiency, and certainly won't hurt packaging). And, of course variable timing (exhaust and intake separately) is also a bonus...

[JLH]

1

[dancin stu]

Originally posted by angst


Well, that's what Max has been chugging on about for some time, but this....


http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55951

doesn't seem to bare this out. Try this, in particular...

"2011

.....

- greater emphasis on cornering performance and handling by means of chassis, suspension, and brake management
- complete freedom to use electronics to make the car more energy-efficient (drive train, etc, management)
- possibly also free up driver-aid electronics"


2008 regulations as already published..... well you show me the bit in the 2008 regulations that 'bans' TC.

Saw this just as I was logging off last week...... So I accept I need to eat a bit of humble pie...

The 2008 regulations I agree do not speficially ban it, but the single ECU spec has a section on startegies not supported, specfically; Traction, Launch, Engine Braking, Auto Clutch and Auto Gear

[angst]

Originally posted by dancin stu


Saw this just as I was logging off last week...... So I accept I need to eat a bit of humble pie...

The 2008 regulations I agree do not speficially ban it, but the single ECU spec has a section on startegies not supported, specfically; Traction, Launch, Engine Braking, Auto Clutch and Auto Gear

I don't expect you to eat humble pie - that was not my intention. Just don't expect a ban on any driver aids.

[gbaker]

It rotates about the wrong axis. It should be a disc (per port) with a rotational axis (near) parallel to the cylinder's.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by gbaker
It rotates about the wrong axis. It should be a disc (per port) with a rotational axis (near) parallel to the cylinder's.

Naah- that's 'planar rotary valve' (they were mounted on crankshaft), as used on 2-stroke engines*. There are also cylindical (like this one, and other variants) and conic (that would be Aspin type, IIRC). Some radial engines had their version of rotary valves, but that was a bit 'extreme'...

* I'd think one would have quite a bit of trouble fitting those on bank of cylinders

[gbaker]

Originally posted by Wolf
...I'd think one would have quite a bit of trouble fitting those on bank of cylinders

It's just a matter of detail. The layout is rather straightforward.

We can probably all agree that the sound of such a valve train would be the cat's meow.