Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

along that line of topic, I went to a presentation by the engineer (Tony Wallis) who designed the Bishop Rotary Valve for F1 Merc engines...but was subsequently written out of the rules, apparently due to renaults influence on the matter.

interesting design if anyone wants to look into it. Beats poppet valve, pneumatic or otherwise hands down.

A links for those interested.

http://home.people.net.au/~mrbdesign/PDF/AutoTechBRV.pdf

rotary valves are nothing new. IIRC there was a rotary valve head made back in the day for holden grey motors. Dunstan or something. And I doubt that was the first. Rotary valves have always looked good in theory, but have alot of problems in practice.

rotary valves are nothing new. IIRC there was a rotary valve head made back in the day for holden grey motors. Dunstan or something. And I doubt that was the first. Rotary valves have always looked good in theory, but have alot of problems in practice.

That was a different design.

There was also a French engineering company that designed a rotary valve f1 engine in the 80's (similar design to the engines you're thinking of) but I think they ran out of money?

The dunstan engine.

post-83669-13986650347731_thumb.jpg

post-83669-13986650742943_thumb.jpg.

Aussie designed BTW.

Speaking of cylinder head design, I'm very much looking forward to seeing productionized versions of the 'Free Valve' infinitely variable pneumatic poppet valve actuation system Koenigsegg have been working on with their engine partner. Don't think solenoid valve actuation will ever be a reality with pissy low-voltage car electrics, but this other system has promise.

That was a different design.

There was also a French engineering company that designed a rotary valve f1 engine in the 80's (similar design to the engines you're thinking of) but I think they ran out of money?

The dunstan engine.

attachicon.gifImageUploadedBySAU Community1398665034.225958.jpg

attachicon.gifImageUploadedBySAU Community1398665073.979800.jpg.

Aussie designed BTW.

No, that's exactly the same design principle, only difference is in the execution. Dunstan head runs the rotating valve shaft longitudinally with a port that opens to orrifices in the head casting, BRV runs individual rotary valve shafts at 90deg to the crank centerline necessitating a complicated gear drive system and completely incorporates the port into them. Same idea, different execution. The rotating disc valve is a different design, but shares the common trait that they really don't work reliably!

the significant difference is you can see actual images of a real life Dunstan rotary valve head, BRV ironically only had drawings of their design in that article about how they finally made one that worked!

IMG_1468.jpg

IMG_1469.jpg

Edited by hrd-hr30

its just a more effective way of a team getting exposure then a normal sponsor....
just like this shithouse 'jandal' crap, was funny when he said it, but getting f**king annoying seeing it plastered everywhere...

And it continues....thjis time STR . Form Autosport

on JEV.... "While there's been some bad luck this year, the fact he has made Q3 three times (and would surely have done so in Bahrain but for a sudden change in the fuel-flow meter readings that forced the team to turn down the engine) shows he has emerged from the biggest disappointment of his career a stronger driver."

Would be simple to throw a bit of redundancy at them by getting them to run two meters

I was at the Sydney Retro Speedfest at Eastern Creek last weekend, and among the classic cars they had there were some old F1 cars, very cool seeing them out on track.

Team Haas Lola THL1

post-61032-0-40410100-1399351880_thumb.jpg

Benetton B186

post-61032-0-36708700-1399351893_thumb.jpg

Williams FW07

post-61032-0-11974200-1399351908_thumb.jpg

Flame Out Surtees TS9B

post-61032-0-71745600-1399351918_thumb.jpg

Edited by 180fan

yawn... torro rosso = red bull

I've read the full decision of the appeals court - "As evidence of the reliability of its fuel flow model, the Appellant provided a series of graphs...Several graphs actually showed that parameters had changed from one lap to the other and that one cannot, therefore, conclude that the fuel flow model did not change notably... On top of this, it appears that not all parameters... were shown in the graphs"

That was their "proof" - doctored graphs and refusing to fully disclose the parameters used to esitmate fuel flow in their model!

Let's put it to rest already.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...