What is keeping rotary valve engines from F1?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Carlos
11
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Carlos » Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:37 pm

The Bishop "type" rotary valve engine-- is distinguish from others primarily by it's valving mechanism-- a sleeve. In my reading of the last few momths I found an article using the sleeve design- a WW11 rotary
sleeve engine designed an introduced to production and service in an
"A" devepolement phase-- that is to say before it's full horsepower
developement was realized. It was more powerful than any other ICE
used as a motor in fighters aeroplanes--it was introduced to service
during the final year of the war. The author of the article--who was
involved in the developement felt that this rotary sleeve valve engine's potential was eclipsed by the late introduction to service--implying that
in a more fully developed version, this engine would have drasticaly
improved power output. The "sealing" technology of this engine must have been very primitive comparied to the Bishop motor. I do not remember how the valve sleeves were "driven" -- but the article and it's author clearly stated it's superiority to the poppet valve engines of that period.
The author lamented that the jet engine eclipsed post war developement
of this motor and that the technology did not find any niche in civilian applications. I do not recall specifications well. I am not sure if it was normally aspirated or "turbo/supercharged". My understanding is in
support of gtpump's opinion- that Bishop valve sleeve and sealing and
sleeve drive method is, perhaps, the best example of the rotary valve engine--speaking as a layman "tuner" of the poppet valve engine.
Please note that my post does not concern 2 stroke, wankel or 6 stroke
ICE motors. May I say , Mr Beare's 6 stroke is extarordinary. If a manufacturer had conceived his idea--which they did'nt-- a corporation
would now commit a budget of 10s of millions, a team of , probably 10
to 30, CAD and CFD to arrive at the Beare 6 stroke's current state of developement. "Quite an effort" -- is a whimsical, respectful understatement.

knighty
0
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Essex-UK

Post by knighty » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:35 pm

gtpumps wrote:With the new V8 regulations the FIA effectively banned any new engine technology.

We got VERY close until the FIA shafted us, this project had been a closely guarded secret until now read about it hereAutoTechnology article

It's a sad day F1 was once the pinnacle of engine development and innovation :(
the FIA did not shaft Ilmor........Renault F1 shafted Ilmor.......principally John Hilton and Rob White ............. while all the other F1 teams fannied about with the suggestions for low cost engine regulations and suggestions to reduce speed........ Renault F1 (Hilton & White) made the 2.4 V8 proposal directly to Max Mosley in an attempt to reduce speeds and costs - they also suggested banning MMC's because they are expensive to develop - and Renault didnt have them at the time!.......now I dare say - I'm speculating with this next bit - Hilton & White (Renault) probably also knew Ilmor were developing rotary valves - as the industry is a small place and people change companies.........therefore Hilton & White knew that Renault were lagging behind in this respect........so I bet Hilton & White (Renault) also suggested to Max to ban rotary valves too........if Ilmor were in the same situation - they would have done the same to Renault.

how do I know this information?........I was at an ImechE F1 engine technical lecture in Basildon - from none other than John Hilton (Renault F1) and he admitted to all this - on stage infront of about 100 ImechE engineers.

gtpumps
0
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:49 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by gtpumps » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:26 pm

knighty wrote:
gtpumps wrote:With the new V8 regulations the FIA effectively banned any new engine technology.

We got VERY close until the FIA shafted us, this project had been a closely guarded secret until now read about it hereAutoTechnology article

It's a sad day F1 was once the pinnacle of engine development and innovation :(
the FIA did not shaft Ilmor........Renault F1 shafted Ilmor.......principally John Hilton and Rob White ............. while all the other F1 teams fannied about with the suggestions for low cost engine regulations and suggestions to reduce speed........ Renault F1 (Hilton & White) made the 2.4 V8 proposal directly to Max Mosley in an attempt to reduce speeds and costs - they also suggested banning MMC's because they are expensive to develop - and Renault didnt have them at the time!.......now I dare say - I'm speculating with this next bit - Hilton & White (Renault) probably also knew Ilmor were developing rotary valves - as the industry is a small place and people change companies.........therefore Hilton & White knew that Renault were lagging behind in this respect........so I bet Hilton & White (Renault) also suggested to Max to ban rotary valves too........if Ilmor were in the same situation - they would have done the same to Renault.

how do I know this information?........I was at an ImechE F1 engine technical lecture in Basildon - from none other than John Hilton (Renault F1) and he admitted to all this - on stage infront of about 100 ImechE engineers.
You are indeed well informed :wink:

Max seems to not fundamentally crasp how important it is for the companies (teams) to win. He thinks you can all sit down together and have an adult discussion about it. When what all these guys really want to do is "destroy" each other.

Anyhow one thing's for sure you won't find me driving a Renault :D

DaveKillens
54
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:02 am

Post by DaveKillens » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:28 pm

The aircraft sleeve valve engine, as typified by the Bristol Hercules was unique in that instead of poppet valves, the cylinder liner was moved in a sort of figure "8" pattern, controlling the timing of intake and exhaust. It had great volumetric efficiency, as well as eliminating a lot of valvetrain mass. Interestingly, imagine how easy it would be to alter the compression ratio...
Behind this marvel was one of Britain's great "boffins", Sir Harry Ricardo F.R.S. http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/achievements/ricardo/.

gtpumps, I'm definitely impressed by the Bishop rotary valve, it's a shame dirty politics put that design concept on the shelf.

Reca
137
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:22 pm
Location: Monza, Italy

Post by Reca » Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:02 pm

In early 90s Ferrari experimented with an “hybrid” design on a single cylinder engine, sleeve valves for intake and poppet for exhaust. I’ve somewhere an Italian technical magazine that published in late 90s an article written exactly by the man who was leading the experimentation that describes the design, the problems and the results. The research was stopped due to lack of money in that period, but there were still many issues to overcome.
In the same period Ferrari also experimented a desmo design. the issue of valve springs was for them particularly important at the time because of the V12 needing to rev higher than V8 and V10. The choice of 5 valves per cylinder was also partly (some say mainly) related to that, then pneumatic valves solved the problem.
gtpumps wrote: Max seems to not fundamentally crasp how important it is for the companies (teams) to win. He thinks you can all sit down together and have an adult discussion about it. When what all these guys really want to do is "destroy" each other.
That’s why any championship, particularly when manufacturers are involved, should be managed like a dictatorship with a very limited group of people, unrelated with teams, defining the rules and giving then the rulebook to the teams negating the possibility to have a say about it.
Most of people believe that the reason currently F1 rules defines about everything on the design and gives very little freedom is a choice of FIA to reduce costs (that per se is nothing but utopia) while it’s entirely a choice of the manufacturers. No big manufacturer is willing to risk that someone arrives with a new solution that really makes the differences because that would mean not only lose on track, but losing badly by seconds, admit you got it wrong and require years to develop a solution someone else introduced first, a PR nightmare nowadays.
They want the rules to limit the design so that the risk to waste money and time on the wrong direction is minimal and even when you get it wrong, isn’t that much wrong so you are close enough to say “it’s just bad luck, we’re almost there, just couple of tenths” anytime the boss asks why you are spending 500 billion per day to be beaten every other Sunday.
The case of the requirement to use a V10 in late 90s is the best example. Everybody in F1 knew that Toyota was working on a V12 for the debut and they feared that, given the advancement in technological level compared with early 90s, it was potentially the best choice forcing them all to follow that direction. Easy solution, impose the V10.

ACO/Le Mans rules follow the same path with the difference that since there’s (at least, there was for years) a single big manufacturer you have the illusion of the freedom and of the innovation. The truth is that Audi followed the diesel route just because ACO gave them enough help with the rules so that even with a non optimal design the car would have been vastly superior to others anyway. What remains is question : did Audi R10 win because of the choice of diesel engine or in spite of it ? But don’t expect an answer for that, certainly not from Audi PR department, we still don’t have an answer for the similar question about the R8 and GDI.

DaveKillens
54
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:02 am

Post by DaveKillens » Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:08 pm

I agree Reca, and for the reasons you stated, am opposed to allowing the menufacturers any power in their involvement. That's one reason why NASCAR is successful, the governing body dictates to everyone, and if a manufacturer isn't happy, they can always pack up their bags and move out.
The sport is supposed to be for the fans, not there purely as a marketing exercise by some well funded team to dominate.

malbeare
0
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:50 am
Location: Australia

Post by malbeare » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:36 pm

gtpumps,
MOTOGP

http://www.fim.ch/en/default.asp?item=26#

the motogp rulebook doesn't seem to rule out valve systems , it only stipulates that the capacity is
(Engines may operate on the two stroke or four stroke principal only.
2.3.2 Engines must be normally aspirated.
44
2.3.3 Cubic capacity of the engine will be defined by the swept volume of
the cylinder, i.e. the area of the bore of the cylinder multiplied by the
stroke.
2.3.4 No tolerance on capacities is permitted.
2.3.5 Engine capacity must be measured at ambient temperature.

2 cylinders or less 133 kg
3 cylinders 140,5 kg
4 cylinders 148 kg
5 cylinders 155,5 kg
6 cylinders or more 163 kg
The use of oval pistons will be forbidden.)


could fellow members give their oppinion as to the likely outcome if I presented a bike with a beare head on it.
A tidy mind is not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare

Carlos
11
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Carlos » Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:55 pm

From my experience of having done porting modifications on 2 strokes and 4 strokes. My intuition suggests a Beare V-2 would produce 20% more horsepower than a 4 cylinder 4 stroke -- with an upper limit of 24000RPM and a flatter torque curve then a 4 cylinder, 4 stroke -- about the same weight & CG of a V-2, 4 stroke -- just bluesking.

Regards Carlos

malbeare
0
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:50 am
Location: Australia

Post by malbeare » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:15 pm

Carlos,
I was thinking more along the lines of what opposition I might encounter from FIM or by the Chief Technical Scrutineer.or manufacturers.
thanks for that encouraging oppinion.

(2.2.1 The following classes will be accommodated, which will be designated
by engine capacity :
125 Over 80cc up to 125cc – Maximum one cylinder
250 Over 175cc up to 250cc – Maximum two cylinders
Motogp Over 350cc up to 500cc (2 strokes) – Maximum four cylinders
Over 350cc up to 990cc (4 strokes) – Unlimited cylinders
As from January 1st, 2007, the maximum engine size
capacity will be 800cc and 2-stroke engines will not be
allowed.
Four stroke motorcycles participating in the Motogp class must be
prototypes. Those that are not entered by a member of MSMA must
be approved for participation by the Grand Prix Commission.)
A tidy mind is not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare

malbeare
0
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:50 am
Location: Australia

Post by malbeare » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:23 pm

http://www.msma-moto.com/

This site is in japonese only efectivly locking out any english speakers
MOTORCYCLE SPORTS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION (MSMA)
Akasaka 4-5-21-317, Minato-Ku,
Tokyo 107-0052
JAPAN.
Tel : +81-3-3568-2056
Fax: +81-3-3568-2057
mail@msma-moto.com
A tidy mind is not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare

Carlos
11
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Carlos » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:15 am

The FIM would create a regulation for the 6 stroke related to displacement to equalize HP output against 2 & 4 stroke design corelated to political considerations-- probably so restrictive the 6 stroke would never actually be allowed to compete.

Regards Carlos

Carlos
11
User avatar
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Carlos » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:29 am

If a major manufacturer currently mass produced motorcycles equipped with 6 stroke engines -- regulations might be more favourable -- but this is not the case, no manufacturer has had the acumen to manufacture the 6 stroke. Without a manufacturers lobbying efforts, the technology won't compete on the racetrack. Not meaning to discourage, but reply directly.




Regards Carlos

ruud.
0
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:38 pm

Post by ruud. » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:48 pm

Ciro Pabón wrote:
zac510 wrote:... the timing and duration of the opening is still locked.
The only constructor of rotary valve engines I could find was Coates. They claim they could double engine output by increasing compression ratios, because their rotary valves does not create hot points in the combustion chamber... I think it has to be taken with a grain of salt, as the one problem with other rotary valves has been that they interfere with the spark plug optimal position. Contrary to Aspen and Cross experiences, they claim they do not need coolant or lubrication on the engine head (?).
with new car engines u can sometimes see more that the sparkplug isnt at the optimal position, they choose to put a injection thing here instead. Also coates isnt the only one who has made this system working. A small dutch compagnie with a brilliant engineer made it work. Also a dutch universitie was having experiments with it and designing it, i dont think they can do it but well see, havent spoken them for some time now.

malbeare
0
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:50 am
Location: Australia

Post by malbeare » Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:14 pm

you guys might like to look at one of the early prototypes in action.

http://www.sixstroke.com/sr500_burnout.htm :P

cheers malbeare
A tidy mind is not intelligent as it ignors the random opportunities of total chaos. Thats my excuse anyway
Malbeare