Ferrari engine failures caused by pneumatic leaks

[flynfrog]

Thats only because you cannot visualise a way to operate sleeve valves other than mechanicaly. Sleeve valves were fitted to far higher powered ic engines than those with mere poppet valves.

Sleeve valves were fitted to far higher power ic engines with mere poppet valves? No, not really. They were simply a solution to the difficulties with poppet valves of the day, just like desmodromic valve systems was a solution to the problems with valve springs once experienced. However, eventually poppet valves overcame those problems, while the sleeve valves still had problems of their own.

It must be the poppet valve lobby spilling there lies.

You mean the same poppet valve lobby that forces all car manufacturers to use them?

that and the oil barons

[autogyro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy

The only problem sleeve valves had was the introduction of the turbine engines in aviation and the cost at the time that prevented further development in car engines.
Sleeve valves have many benefits over poppet valves.
A friend of mine has two Bristol radial sleeve valve engines in his workshop of 3200hp each. They came from a Beverley aircraft. They were to be used in a Hawker Sea Fury racer.
British sleeve valve aero engines were over twice the power for the same capacity compared to the American poppet valve aero engines, at the end of large piston engined aircraft use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre

[flynfrog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy

The only problem sleeve valves had was the introduction of the turbine engines in aviation and the cost at the time that prevented further development in car engines.
Sleeve valves have many benefits over poppet valves.
A friend of mine has two Bristol radial sleeve valve engines in his workshop of 3200hp each. They came from a Beverley aircraft. They were to be used in a Hawker Sea Fury racer.
British sleeve valve aero engines were over twice the power for the same capacity compared to the American poppet valve aero engines, at the end of large piston engined aircraft use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre

so you are saying they were great until they were obsolete?

[autogyro]

There is no point answering that is there.
IC car engines have been obsolete since the first electric car.
It is only vested interest that has kept them going.

[timbo]

IC car engines have been obsolete since the first electric car.

Until now, there's no both ecological and economically viable way to produce electricity.
"Vested interest" still persists because it is still more effective to take fossil fuel and burn it directly inside a cylinder, than produce electricity and then power car with it.
And I'm even not talking accumulator technology here.

[xpensive]

IC car engines have been obsolete since the first electric car.

Until now, there's no both ecological and economically viable way to produce electricity.
"Vested interest" still persists because it is still more effective to take fossil fuel and burn it directly inside a cylinder, than produce electricity and then power car with it.
And I'm even not talking accumulator technology here.

Oh but there is, with developed nuclear power, but the problem is storing and charging the electric energy in the car. Let's say that the electric motor is three times as efficient than the ICE, you would still need the equivalent of 20 liters of gasoline energy, which is some 650 MJ or MWs. To fill that up in 10 minutes you need a charging power in the region of 1 MW to a 600 MJ battery.
Thats like 1500 pcs of last years KERS batteries. Realistic anyone?

[autogyro]

Strange then that before the second world war practicaly all the Cities in America and Europe had electric public transport systems and many of them had methods for private electric vehicles to run directly or charge on the move from these infra structures.
Of course, in America at least it was GM that bought up and scrapped the electric systems and replaced them with petrol buses.
It amazes me how narrow minded clever engineers can be, I suppose it is the controlled method of education that puts the blinkers on even the very clever.

[flynfrog]

Strange then that before the second world war practicaly all the Cities in America and Europe had electric public transport systems and many of them had methods for private electric vehicles to run directly or charge on the move from these infra structures.
Of course, in America at least it was GM that bought up and scrapped the electric systems and replaced them with petrol buses.
It amazes me how narrow minded clever engineers can be, I suppose it is the controlled method of education that puts the blinkers on even the very clever.

This has what do with Ferrari engine failure?

Got it the 3 steup autogyro debate:

Change subject.
Blame oil lobby
add unrelated story.


I should make a flow chart.

[timbo]

Oh but there is, with developed nuclear power, but the problem is storing and charging the electric energy in the car. Let's say that the electric motor is three times as efficient than the ICE, you would still need the equivalent of 20 liters of gasoline energy, which is some 650 MJ or MWs. To fill that up in 10 minutes you need a charging power in the region of 1 MW to a 600 MJ battery.
Thats like 1500 pcs of last years KERS batteries. Realistic anyone?

Nuclear power?
If you mean fission, you need very xpensive and not xactly green mining, also you need fluorine. Then there's problem with recycling.
Fusion power is great, and there's some good signs that we're finally moving forward, but I don't think there would be practically viable technology within 30 years.
As for batteries -- lithium ones are relatively green, but won't last long if you freeze them (are you from Sweden x?). They're also flammable and xpensive. Others -- lead and cadmium are more practical. But green? Sheesh... And any battery needs to be recycled.

Rail public transport is fine.
But not many people want public transport...
And if you want to transmit that much energy wireless it's also not very good for ecology.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for teleporters .

[xpensive]

Oh we love our ten reactors, produces 50% of our electric energy and we have more uranium in the ground than Norway has oil.
If it wasn't for the "environmentalists", we would be nuclear-sheiks all of us.

But anyway, the limitation for a rational electric car will always be storage and charding of the electric energy, 1 MW for a 10 minute charge of a 600 MJ battery, not in this lifetime.

Railway cars are simply not comparable, obviously.

[mx_tifoso]

Please only discuss the Ferrari engine failures. Thank you guys and gals.

[xpensive]

Right matured moderator, what I am arguing is that I do not find it totally implauible that one of 32 reciprocating gas-seals can fail after 6 hours at 30 Hz and at a very elevated temperature.

[Edis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Crecy

The only problem sleeve valves had was the introduction of the turbine engines in aviation and the cost at the time that prevented further development in car engines.
Sleeve valves have many benefits over poppet valves.
A friend of mine has two Bristol radial sleeve valve engines in his workshop of 3200hp each. They came from a Beverley aircraft. They were to be used in a Hawker Sea Fury racer.
British sleeve valve aero engines were over twice the power for the same capacity compared to the American poppet valve aero engines, at the end of large piston engined aircraft use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre

Your comparison is limping seriously. You're comparing twostrokes with fourstrokes and aircooled engined with watercooled ones without any regard.

There is no point answering that is there.
IC car engines have been obsolete since the first electric car.
It is only vested interest that has kept them going.

No, roads longer than the main street made electric cars obsolete.

[Ray]

So wait, they only use air in those tanks for controlling the valves? They don't have some sort of pump to keep that tank filled during the race? An air compressor if you will?

[Edis]

Oh we love our ten reactors, produces 50% of our electric energy and we have more uranium in the ground than Norway has oil.
If it wasn't for the "environmentalists", we would be nuclear-sheiks all of us.

But anyway, the limitation for a rational electric car will always be storage and charding of the electric energy, 1 MW for a 10 minute charge of a 600 MJ battery, not in this lifetime.

Railway cars are simply not comparable, obviously.

I would think that the main limitation with regard to charging would be the power that can be supplied by the electric grid. The european 0.4kV low voltage grid can for instance usually handle 63 amps, which will give a maximum charge of 45 kW. More than that would be expensive in terms of intrastructure.

The cost of the battery would be the limit to battery capacity. If you for instance can do 80% of your driving with a 10 kWh 5000 euro battery, why pay for a 20 kWh 10000 euro battery which perhaps raise the possible range to 85% of travels? By a comparison, a small IC engine to power the car the last 20% only cost 1000 euro or so.

So wait, they only use air in those tanks for controlling the valves? They don't have some sort of pump to keep that tank filled during the race? An air compressor if you will?

No, they just have a high pressure nitrogen bottle. But usually it's possible to refill it during a pit stop, it have been done in the past at least.