Engine Sizes

rypt · 20 Jan 2011 at 21:58

Janesy B said:
Why hasn't it?

Costs, though they would be lower now than they once were

As for transients Simon, depends what you mean, with a CVT between the turbine and the crank it will not have issues with non steady state operation

Jonnycoupe · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:08

How can it be cheaper than it once was when its never been in the first place?

A current tech CVT wont take any significant torque though, plus transients on CVT is pretty crummy. HCCI and the scud are more likely than the stuff you regurgitate for a inappropriate/different application all the time like a broken record. Hence any more in this thread from me will no doubt have a rather strong sense of deja vu...

I like how you only consider transients as a change in engine speed aswell, the throttle opening presents an issue purely how the cylinders fill and meet the torque demand.

rypt · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:10

You can gear it to reduce torque and then gear it back up if need be

Yes this will add a loss, but you are already simply using exhaust gases and are trying to get the compression stroke for free

Jonnycoupe · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:12

You're talking out your ring piece.

Cheers

rypt · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:13

Less so that you half the time

Alibaba99 · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:14

rypt said:
When turbos were allowed in F1 the, Benneton (well Cosworth) engine was designed to be run at 8bar and was conceived as having a turbine powering the crank.
When the rules were changed to only let it run 4bar boost the engine was change to not have that turbine anymore, but the turbo still made 8bar boost afaik. This was then expanded to give the needed 4 bar of boost at the restrictor.

What is regarded is the most powerful unlimited boost F1 engine, the BMW Megatron unit, achieved a peak boost of 5.5bar absolute, once, at one point in a lap of Monza. Normally it peaked around 5bar, so I'm not sure where you are getting the extra 2.5-3bar from.

[TW]Fox · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:16

rypt said:
Less so that you half the time

He is an automotive engineer, you are a known fantasist.

He wins by default, nobody beleives a word you type.

rypt · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:18

The GBA (I think it was) was designed to take 8bar ... but never did due to rules change to 4bar

Jonnycoupe · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:24

[TW]Fox;18277256 said:
He is an automotive engineer, you are a known fantasist.

He wins by default, nobody beleives a word you type.

When i was at Rolls Royce working within the technical authority of the nuclear plants for UK subs he would argue over things like pressure vessel sizes and cost and cooling circuit chemistry completely contradicting what i was able to comment on - amazing.

rypt · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:26

Say what, when did I ever argue about sizes :/

Jonnycoupe · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:28

Japan and Sheffield Forgemasters ring any bells? Go back to Sc and fix the NHS or something.

Kenai · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:30

Or better yet, just go away entirely

rypt · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:30

Jonnycoupe said:
Japan and Sheffield Forgemasters ring any bells? Go back to Sc and fix the NHS or something.

I have no memory of arguing over physical sizes of anything ...

Simon · 20 Jan 2011 at 22:32

[TW]Fox;18277256 said:
He is an automotive engineer, you are a known fantasist.

He wins by default, nobody beleives a word you type.

He's aerospace

DAIR · 21 Jan 2011 at 09:39

Ricochet J said:
http://events.imeche.org/EventView.aspx?EventID=1000

This is a lecture headed by the IMechE to do with engine downsizing. It's costs money to attend but the minutes of the lecture and supporting notes/slides/presentations are usually posted on the website shortly after the event.

Anyway as much as I hate to say it but engine downsizing is going to become more and more mainstream. It'll reduce manufacturing costs, reduce emissions and increase the efficiencies of an engine.

And reduce the overall fun factor.

Next car will be old school jap.

Firestar_3x · 21 Jan 2011 at 10:14

10/10 performance from Rypt again i see, fantastic stuff.

Simon · 21 Jan 2011 at 10:40

He is very cRyptic isn't he. I think he has a subliminal message in his posts.

rypt · 21 Jan 2011 at 11:11

Simon said:
He's aerospace

Good for him, he has yet to actually show me that he has any sort of knowledge of what we were discussing ... beyond the usual "nah" reply.
... as shown by him simply dismissing gearing up/down to avoid high torque, despite that being done in drag racing to ensure the diff can handle all the torque and not blow up

Luckily I've long ago stopped caring about much of what he posts as he never bothers to give much detail beyond the, as already mentioned, "nah, won't work"...

Jonnycoupe · 21 Jan 2011 at 11:20

I said CVT gearboxs had torque limit issues... not differentials.

Changing the gear ratios to influence output shaft torque is not how you deal with the engine input torque limits of a gearbox... which is whay theres no point providing you more regurgitation to use later, ergo EXPLAINING something to you.

You are owed no more than 'Nah' to be quite honest, arguing your points as though they are fact gains little credibility when they are so irelevant. Ive seen even less content to your theorised crank turbine which sound little more than an energy 'bar of soap'.

rypt · 21 Jan 2011 at 11:33

The CVT is between the TURBINE and the CRANKSHAFT, if the TURBINE torque is too high you can gear between the TURBINE and CVT and then again between CVT and CRANK

As for the theorised thing, it is not my theory, but the theory of a former Cosworth engineer (who used to work on turbines before Cosworth was founded) ... it does make sense in my head and even more so once you go through and do all the calculations with regards to pressure, volume, temperature, otto cycle, etc.