Why no spherical rotary valve engines like this in F1

[Astro1]

http://www.coatesengine.com/technology.html

It seems that with piston speed/acceleration the main problem (and ofcourse the FIA rpm limit) why haven't F1 considered engines other than the usual poppet valve?

[Saribro]

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulati ... nship.aspx

Check the technical regulations.

[PlatinumZealot]

There is already a thread on this somewhere.

But yeah that coates engine design is the best of the rotary valve designs.

[axle]

If we are going to revolutionize road cars then this isn't the technology to champion.

Instead F1 engines should look at variable compression and cam-less electromagnetic valve systems (the ones that can open a valve any distance for any time independently from the rest of the valvetrain/engine)...as these are of real interest to the OEM world.

[Ted68]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3045&hilit=+rotary+valve

[gcdugas]

There is already a thread on this somewhere.

But yeah that coates engine design is the best of the rotary valve designs.

Don't forget the Bishop Valve engine. Clicky

If we are going to revolutionize road cars then this isn't the technology to champion.

Instead F1 engines should look at variable compression and cam-less electromagnetic valve systems (the ones that can open a valve any distance for any time independently from the rest of the valvetrain/engine)...as these are of real interest to the OEM world.

No, I think you are wrong. It is still a poppet valve and it still involves all the usual losses and inefficiencies associated with accelerating reciprocating masses. A rotary valve involves no energy losses from accelerating and slowing mass. Plus any electro-servo arrangement involves lots of bent metal if there is a failure. This is the same reason pneumatic valves will never see the light of OEM day.

[PlatinumZealot]

The Bishop valve is interesting.. But the major problem is that the intake and exhaust valves are on the same mechanism so they are not independent. And you need so many gears.

In the Coates version you can change the valve timing amd changing the vavle flow is also possible.

I was trying to design my own version.. and after long hours of work.. I realised that it just ended up looking like the Coates design, but mine obviously had more design flaws...

I feel like i should post some pictures of mine.. it has the ability to alter valve timing and opening... but the disadvantage was that the valve openings had to be very small compared to the cylinder bore and the bearings and seals that held my valves didn't get enough space.
The truncated sphere valves that are in the Coates design was the solution to that problem.. so I just quit on my idea since they figured it out already.

[gcdugas]

The intake and exhaust gain nothing from being independent. I just can't locate the spark plug on the Bishop valved engine. And the Combustion chamber shape may be less than ideal. The Bishop however does have far superior flow. In the thread Ted68 mentioned there were a few posts from an engineer who personally worked on the Bishop valve engine. Also the article I linked is a good read and covered many of the technical concerns that have been raised on this forum. People just seem to look at the picture and disregard the text. Then they ask questions addressed by the text.

[axle]

No, I think you are wrong. It is still a poppet valve and it still involves all the usual losses and inefficiencies associated with accelerating reciprocating masses. A rotary valve involves no energy losses from accelerating and slowing mass. Plus any electro-servo arrangement involves lots of bent metal if there is a failure. This is the same reason pneumatic valves will never see the light of OEM day.

No, I'm not wrong. I know people in OEM Powertrain development. They have gotten poppet valve systems far more advanced than can be achieved with rotory valves. And it's a system that is cam-less. Electromagnetic is not servo control.

[autogyro]

No, I think you are wrong. It is still a poppet valve and it still involves all the usual losses and inefficiencies associated with accelerating reciprocating masses. A rotary valve involves no energy losses from accelerating and slowing mass. Plus any electro-servo arrangement involves lots of bent metal if there is a failure. This is the same reason pneumatic valves will never see the light of OEM day.

No, I'm not wrong. I know people in OEM Powertrain development. They have gotten poppet valve systems far more advanced than can be achieved with rotory valves. And it's a system that is cam-less. Electromagnetic is not servo control.

I think you will find that the limitation of both poppet valves and rotary valves is the port area possible.
Which is why the best non poppet valved engines were the late WW2 Bristol sleeve valve and the Napier Sabre Sleeve valve. (Hawker Typhoon/Tempest and Hawker Sea Fury)
These 'clunk' head engines were looked into by the late Tony Rudd when he was at BRM but discarded because of material limitations holding down the RPM. (he designed the H16 BRM engine). I talked with Tony on many occasions (he was an ex WW2 Mosquito navigator).
Material would now solve this problem but of course it is now regulations and budgets that prevent development. Oh yes, and limitation of imagination forced by computer data bases.

[Carlos]

OT. A short backround article on Tony Rudd:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rudd

[SZ]

F1 engines should look at variable compression and cam-less electromagnetic valve systems (the ones that can open a valve any distance for any time independently from the rest of the valvetrain/engine)

Um, at what cost?

Let alone that there's very little need for variable anything in an F1 engine. The operating requirements - and range - are very limited/specific compared to a road car project.

as these are of real interest to the OEM world.

These are of interest to OEM research, which is a world away from the OEM world.

The solutions cost too much for what efficiency they bring compared to other possibilities.

[Conceptual]

I recall asking this same question when I first joined these forums, and there was a member that had an expired patent on a "better" version of the CSRV, and offered that I could build them myself if I wanted to...

If that member reads this, PLEASE PM ME AGAIN!

[PlatinumZealot]

The intake and exhaust gain nothing from being independent.

The exhaust valve is very hot so that means that if the exhaust and intake valve is one and the same then you have a hot intake valve.

The Coates version is also better for street cars. I can see BMW Double Vanos and Toyota's VVTi being implemented on it.

The valves also share the seals.. so the seals have to cycle hot then cold.

It also has the advantage of less parts and more adaptability to existing designs.

[PlatinumZealot]

This was the design I attempted.. there are other innovations I had in mind but they are not shown.

Concept.. in AutoCad.. I used SolidWorks later. Smikle rotary valve..

You see the relatively large runner sizes in the picture below.



The two tubular valves rotate like a camshaft. One for intake one for exhaust. The valves are simply tubes. There are no partitions inside. So even when the valve is closed for a one runner opening air is still inside it at all times. This engine would be good for supercharging/turbo charging too.




Here you see my plans for the combustion chamber. The valve opening area is on the small side when compared to the Bishop design.



Also, the major problem was.... Guess what

no space for proper HEADBOLTS!!

SolidWorks drawing.. It is just a test model.. the real head would be one piece, as long as the number of cylinders you desire. Not chopped up like this example. It is designed to carry oil seals and Carbon rotary seals in those grooves then Needle roller bearings holding the "Tubular Valves".

Weaknesses
You can see the weak headbolt arrangement.
You need a really wide engine block to hold the head.
The head would bend upwards under peak combustion pressure.



Below: revised combustion area to make the head more rigid.



The solution to the problems, I realise is for the design to end up like the Coates version.