3 ms·

Another trick Formula 1 has had for a while, that will soon be seeing adoption into production cars, are camless engines. Valves are operated by electronically

by MrFoof 10y ago

Another trick Formula 1 has had for a while, that will soon be seeing adoption into production cars, are camless engines. Valves are operated by electronically-controlled pneumatic actuators. This allows the valves to open and close faster, and makes intermediate states (in between fully closed and fully open) a lot easier. It's also a major reason as to why crank speeds are as high as they are in F1 cars, as they valves can be actuated fast enough to avoid the valve float that would otherwise occur in cammed engines with valve springs. Production cars currently tend to top out around 9450rpm (the 6.3L V12 in the LaFerrari), whereas Formula 1 cars have pushed close to 20,000rpm (though usually 16,000 - 18,000) for quite some time. Supercar manufacturer Koenigsegg is in the process of licensing their consumer version of the technology under the trade name "Freevalve". They've been developing it and testing it for an incredibly long time (I believe it's in its fourth or fifth generation), presumably to keep driving the costs down. I believe a few Chinese manufacturers are some of the initial companies signing on. It's around a 3-4% efficiency gain on its own. There's other fun stuff too, like Mercedes-Benz's split turbochargers. Basically, the turbine is located near the exhaust still, but a shaft runs through the engine to the other side to the compressor which is near the intakes -- less piping to get a cooled charge, less turbo lag (again, shorter piping), a more compact engine footprint, and needing smaller intake side pods than using normal turbochargers. Be interesting to see if those trickle down to consumer autos, whereas currently manufacturers are instead integrating 48V electrical systems for electric turbochargers (and more advanced lighting, hybrid functionality, etc.)

gregpilling 10y ago
Streetbikes have pushed 20,000 for quite a while, with steel valve springs. No pneumatic valve springs required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redline#Examples_of_motorcycle_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redline#Examples_of_motorcycle... Kawasaki ZXR 250: 19,000 rpm Honda CBR250RR: 19,000 rpm Yamaha FZR250: 18,500 rpm Yamaha YZF-R6: 16,200 rpm
- MrFoof 10y ago
  Those are also far, far, far lower displacement. 19,000rpm, sure, but with 250cc displacement. In 1999, Formula 1 engine displacement was mandated to 2400cc and engine speeds were limited to 18,000 rpm to help keep costs in check -- they could still maintain 19,000rpm despite an order of magnitude higher engine displacement (and the far higher forces involved). Heck, remote control car nitromethane engines have operated in the 35000rpm - 40000 rpm range decades ago. But with minuscule displacements (~3cc). If valve springs worked at those speeds and 2000+ cc displacements, trust me, Formula 1 wouldn't have abandoned them several decades ago.
WalterBright 10y ago
It allows dynamic adjustment of the cam profile, rather than having a fixed profile.
avs733 10y ago
>Another trick Formula 1 has had for a while, that will soon be seeing adoption into production cars, are camless engines. Valves are operated by electronically-controlled pneumatic actuators. This allows the valves to open and close faster, and makes intermediate states (in between fully closed and fully open) a lot easier. It's also a major reason as to why crank speeds are as high as they are in F1 cars, as they valves can be actuated fast enough to avoid the valve float that would otherwise occur in cammed engines with valve springs. Production cars currently tend to top out around 9450rpm (the 6.3L V12 in the LaFerrari), whereas Formula 1 cars have pushed close to 20,000rpm (though usually 16,000 - 18,000) for quite some time. Sorry to be a buzzkill but this is not correct The engines are not camless. However, they are 'spring less' in a traditional sense. In the early 1990's the typical wound wire springs were replaced with pneumatically charged cylinder that functions as the spring. The reason was do to the inability to create wound wire springs that did not encounter harmonic issues as RPM went up and a more efficient valve closing action. However, through all of this, the camshaft itself is retained.This allowed engines to reach over 20k rpm (which sounds unreal) but the current regulations, introduced in 2014, limit them to 15k and they typically run less due to rules that limit fuel flow at higher RPMs. The Koenisegg on the other hand is absolutely camless technology they call Free valve and it is a marvel. It not only allows control of the profile, overall, but a on a cylinder by cylinder valve by valve basis. Similar thing with Mercedes' turbo charger. It is split, and it is impressive, but the benefits are more complex simply gaining from placing the compressor and turbine at different ends of the engine (e.g., moving intake charge away from exhaust heat, providing space for an ultra highspeed motor/generator on the turbo shaft) etc. At the risk of sharing clickbait...there is an argument that current F1 cars are more energy efficient than a tesla (http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15152695/f1-cars-more-efficient-latest-tesla http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15152695/f1-cars-more-ef...)
- yborg 10y ago
  They are also considerably more expensive than a Tesla. http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1 http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1
  - 10y ago
asimuvPR 10y ago
Funny that you mention this. Auto manufacturers have been researching electromechanical actuators to replace the mechanical valvetrain. I remember seeing photographs of some of the prototypes sometime during the early 90s. With the current state of engine technology it's safe to assume that a similar thing will be introduced in the next ten years. They already have the injector in the combustion chamber area and throttle by wire with variable length intake manifolds. Plus the engine controls have a much better capacity of understanding what's going on.
venning 10y ago
The biggest problem with road cars using valve springs (or indeed engines) that run at 20,000 RPM isn't technological; the issue is practical. Valve springs that function properly at 20k are going to be strong and produce serious resistance at low engine speeds (as a percentage of total power output). So much so that F1 cars with idle speeds of 7,000 RPM are normal. Low RPMs is where most road cars live. F1 cars don't want to be running at low engine speeds since that's not where the power is. Sacrificing power production at the low end (due to the power consumed working the valves) is an easy trade-off for a racecar. Proper valve spring design is hard: it's a balancing act between power consumption at the low end and power production at the high end. F1 engines have a (relatively) narrow operating band, whereas a road car is expected to be usable from (a low) idle to redline. (Expense is less of an issue here. Multi-million-dollar supercars with 20,000 RPM redlines would sell well.)

by MrFoof 10y ago

gregpilling 10y ago

Streetbikes have pushed 20,000 for quite a while, with steel valve springs. No pneumatic valve springs required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redline#Examples_of_motorcycle_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redline#Examples_of_motorcycle... Kawasaki ZXR 250: 19,000 rpm Honda CBR250RR: 19,000 rpm Yamaha FZR250: 18,500 rpm Yamaha YZF-R6: 16,200 rpm

MrFoof 10y ago
Those are also far, far, far lower displacement. 19,000rpm, sure, but with 250cc displacement. In 1999, Formula 1 engine displacement was mandated to 2400cc and engine speeds were limited to 18,000 rpm to help keep costs in check -- they could still maintain 19,000rpm despite an order of magnitude higher engine displacement (and the far higher forces involved). Heck, remote control car nitromethane engines have operated in the 35000rpm - 40000 rpm range decades ago. But with minuscule displacements (~3cc). If valve springs worked at those speeds and 2000+ cc displacements, trust me, Formula 1 wouldn't have abandoned them several decades ago.

WalterBright 10y ago

It allows dynamic adjustment of the cam profile, rather than having a fixed profile.

avs733 10y ago

>Another trick Formula 1 has had for a while, that will soon be seeing adoption into production cars, are camless engines. Valves are operated by electronically-controlled pneumatic actuators. This allows the valves to open and close faster, and makes intermediate states (in between fully closed and fully open) a lot easier. It's also a major reason as to why crank speeds are as high as they are in F1 cars, as they valves can be actuated fast enough to avoid the valve float that would otherwise occur in cammed engines with valve springs. Production cars currently tend to top out around 9450rpm (the 6.3L V12 in the LaFerrari), whereas Formula 1 cars have pushed close to 20,000rpm (though usually 16,000 - 18,000) for quite some time. Sorry to be a buzzkill but this is not correct The engines are not camless. However, they are 'spring less' in a traditional sense. In the early 1990's the typical wound wire springs were replaced with pneumatically charged cylinder that functions as the spring. The reason was do to the inability to create wound wire springs that did not encounter harmonic issues as RPM went up and a more efficient valve closing action. However, through all of this, the camshaft itself is retained.This allowed engines to reach over 20k rpm (which sounds unreal) but the current regulations, introduced in 2014, limit them to 15k and they typically run less due to rules that limit fuel flow at higher RPMs. The Koenisegg on the other hand is absolutely camless technology they call Free valve and it is a marvel. It not only allows control of the profile, overall, but a on a cylinder by cylinder valve by valve basis. Similar thing with Mercedes' turbo charger. It is split, and it is impressive, but the benefits are more complex simply gaining from placing the compressor and turbine at different ends of the engine (e.g., moving intake charge away from exhaust heat, providing space for an ultra highspeed motor/generator on the turbo shaft) etc. At the risk of sharing clickbait...there is an argument that current F1 cars are more energy efficient than a tesla (http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15152695/f1-cars-more-efficient-latest-tesla http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/15152695/f1-cars-more-ef...)

yborg 10y ago
They are also considerably more expensive than a Tesla. http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1 http://raconteur.net/infographics/the-economics-of-formula-1
- 10y ago

asimuvPR 10y ago

Funny that you mention this. Auto manufacturers have been researching electromechanical actuators to replace the mechanical valvetrain. I remember seeing photographs of some of the prototypes sometime during the early 90s. With the current state of engine technology it's safe to assume that a similar thing will be introduced in the next ten years. They already have the injector in the combustion chamber area and throttle by wire with variable length intake manifolds. Plus the engine controls have a much better capacity of understanding what's going on.

venning 10y ago

The biggest problem with road cars using valve springs (or indeed engines) that run at 20,000 RPM isn't technological; the issue is practical. Valve springs that function properly at 20k are going to be strong and produce serious resistance at low engine speeds (as a percentage of total power output). So much so that F1 cars with idle speeds of 7,000 RPM are normal. Low RPMs is where most road cars live. F1 cars don't want to be running at low engine speeds since that's not where the power is. Sacrificing power production at the low end (due to the power consumed working the valves) is an easy trade-off for a racecar. Proper valve spring design is hard: it's a balancing act between power consumption at the low end and power production at the high end. F1 engines have a (relatively) narrow operating band, whereas a road car is expected to be usable from (a low) idle to redline. (Expense is less of an issue here. Multi-million-dollar supercars with 20,000 RPM redlines would sell well.)