That looks interesting. But they still have the friction of those "two-part seals" to minimize. And since it uses no oil for lubrication, it must be made of expensive materials to withstand the heat.
Last edited:
engines without intake valves?
- Thread starter 1QUICK10TH
- Start date
10 or so years ago I read an article in Engine Masters that was about a completely new head design that only needed the timing chain to function. It seemed like it was dual overhead cam design, but the "cams" had pockets in them and when aligned just right, would allow air in and out. The design of the head eliminated pushrods, valve springs, etc. They said that they took a completely stock 5.0 that dyno'd ~215hp at the wheels and when they changed ONLY the heads, power shot up to 400+hp at the wheels and the motor was spun up to 10,500+ rpm with the stock rotating assembly...
Let me search around and see what I can find.
Edit: Seems like I didn't read down far enough and shanezt posted what I was thinking.
Let me search around and see what I can find.
Edit: Seems like I didn't read down far enough and shanezt posted what I was thinking.
Last edited:
Lol Pizz I hate you but not really
So the connecting rods, crank, and all the bearings magically got better because of a new top end? Cool.
so is the ultimate goal to maximize fuel efficiency? you wouldn't be gaining HP since your limiting the total amount of air in the combustion chamber vs the air intake arrangement that we currently use. but limiting the total amount of air and precisely controlling the A/F ratio would certainly maximize fuel efficiency in a piston engine i would think.
which begs the question; why the hell hasn't anyone built a miller cycle performance engine??? miller cycle V8 with todays increasingly efficient twin screw superchargers, it's a no brainer!
yeah I keep thinking this as well.
Even the most advanced internal combustion engines on the planet (Formula Un) still use valves. Sure theyre hydraulically actuated, but still they use a valve for a reason.
Also the link someone posted to the CSRV, that design doesnt look like it flows very well. Air enters this weird chunky looking chamber and thats supposed to be better than a static runner manifold/head?
With the advent of E85 everything they said about efficiency after getting rid of lead and going to low comp motors would be voided and we could go back to high comp motors. Oh wait, we have.......and on pump gas. New Coyote 5.0 is 11.5:1 CR and IIRC can run on 87 octane (last one I was in didnt say it needed premium so.....). And if heat spots in the valve were causing predetonation and thats it, someone wouldve created a valve with way better heat resistive properties.
Last edited:
like most componentry in racing - carbs in NASCAR(until this year of course), roots blowers in top fuel, piston engines in le mans prototypes(rule added after the mazda 787 won the 24hrs of le mans), etc. - F1 still uses poppet valves because the rules mandate that's what they use. this is actually the rotary valve that caused the current F1 regulations...
http://home.people.net.au/~mrbdesign/PDF/AutoTechBRV.pdf
ah horseshit.
I lol @ watching nascar when instead of 3-4 guys around an engine in the pits, its one dude with a laptop on the roof of the car looking at a log. And then the commenters all talk about it because its totally new for them. All my buddies we all looked at eachother like "****, we were doing that shit in the early 00's! We could probably make 100k/yr with some sprint cup team!"
LOL no doubt! and the best part is that it's just a basic TBI set up too. i don't know why they didn't just go multiport right off the bat. hey, we might be there in another 25 years though. they might even have direct injection within the next 50!:lol1:
Now we've got some creative juices flowing!!
I would love to see what F1 engineers could do with no engine limitations. The rules have reduced the RPM of those several times, what would they be doing now if they didnt have those regulations?! Crazy to think about.
Cant read the PDF at work, i'll check it out later.
I would love to see what F1 engineers could do with no engine limitations. The rules have reduced the RPM of those several times, what would they be doing now if they didnt have those regulations?! Crazy to think about.
Cant read the PDF at work, i'll check it out later.
Last edited:
that makes for one helluva big ass "valve" huh? it's simply amazing that such ground breaking developments like that rarely ever see the light of day in some form other than as a prototype.
current F1 engine regs...
Formula 1
...practically a spec series at this point:nonono:
Yea I looked into them a while back, I was interested in their RPM's. They used to run 22,000RPM, and now they are limited down to 18k...I wonder the reasoning behind some of their limits? It clearly isnt to let the "little guys" be competitive.
all about cost cutting. cutting the RPMs cuts engine wear, then FIA can mandate a fewer amount of engines available per racing season for each team and thus save running costs. the only problem with these rule changes to cut costs is that costs aren't actually cut, the teams merely put that money into other parts of the car during development.
Last edited:
Screw that, they shouldnt care about costs. Let the teams worry about that part of things.
Right - then you'd have 3, maybe 4 teams, and the rest would go broke. Not much of a series.
Then make a new series called "F1 Unlimited" and let a few teams go wild.
IIRC they said the main componant limiting rpm is the valve train. also got rid of alot of drag on the engine as well. removing the limits of the valvetrain allowed them to rev the engine up to the cranks limit.
That's what I wish they'd do. Personally, I think the ultimate racing series would have a formula that essentially says "you get XXXX ergs of energy for each race. I don't give two shits how you use them, or what your car looks like, but that's all you get." Then, let the designers go wild.
Last edited:
yea, i can't stand F1 anymore. just a few decades ago, we had 6 wheeled cars(both 4 in front configuration and 4 in rear configuration), turbine engined cars, 4WD cars, 'sucker' cars that literally had a fan to create a vacuum underneath the car, the tub-in-tub lotus, etc. all banned in due time. pisses me off to no end, they are straight up strangling innovation.
and, on top of that, the indycar series has provided FAR more entertaining races than F1 of recent times.
here's the excerpt about the coates rotary valve 5.0l...
"Where the CSRV really shines is in its airflow potential compared to a poppet valve Bench-marking a 5.0 L engine from a Lincoln, the stock Ford casting (when tested at 28 inches of H2O) flowed approximately 180 cfm on the intake port at static. The rotary valve for the engine in comparison flowed a whopping 319-cfm at the same test pressure. Equipped with the poppet valve head, the Lincoln engine dynoed at 260 hp and 249 lb.-ft of torque. When equipped with the CSRV head at the same 5,500 rpm test protocol, it made 475 hp and 454 lb.-ft of torque, with no changes to the block or rotating assembly: The higher power was a result of diminished frictional and pumping losses, but the inherent airflow benefit of the spherical valve was the major contributor. With a conventional poppet valve, it can take 34 degrees of crankshaft rotation or more to reach a fully open position, wasting energy and limiting volumetric efficiency. With the CSRV, a comparable port area is exposed in only 2 degrees of crank rotation. The CSRV allows for superior surface flow coefficients from its spherical shape. With the standard 4-inch Ford bore, the factory poppet valve covers only 15.8 percent of the total bore area, while the rotary valve is measured at 20.5 percent.
The design of the CSRV, which at first glance resembles an OHC cylinder head, allows for the central placement of the spark plug in the bore. By varying the spark plug location when referenced to the bore centerline, the most desirable position is in the center. This will allow the cylinder pressure build in the minimum amount of crank rotational degrees past TDC.
Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm! Though the CSRV removes the valvetrain rpm limitations, the need to have a rotating assembly that can withstand the engine speed becomes the essential element. Another benefit of this design is the extended oil change intervals, with the lubricating system not being exposed to the rigors and pollution from the poppet valve."
the key info we were missing earlier in the discussion is underlined. should clear it up, lol.The design of the CSRV, which at first glance resembles an OHC cylinder head, allows for the central placement of the spark plug in the bore. By varying the spark plug location when referenced to the bore centerline, the most desirable position is in the center. This will allow the cylinder pressure build in the minimum amount of crank rotational degrees past TDC.
Since horsepower is defined as work over time, the CSRV allows for an extremely high rpm potential. Test run at Coates' facility have seen a Ford 5.0 liter engine spin to 14,750 rpm! Though the CSRV removes the valvetrain rpm limitations, the need to have a rotating assembly that can withstand the engine speed becomes the essential element. Another benefit of this design is the extended oil change intervals, with the lubricating system not being exposed to the rigors and pollution from the poppet valve."
i've been waiting for a racing series to do this for a LONG time! minimal rules - safety regulations + the energy content limit - and let the engineers have at it! though i would like to see ABS and traction control disallowed because it makes for some far more entertaining racing, and it really brings out the best driver.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
