Professor Shaver and grad student, David Snyder
This will be news to most readers, even racing enthusiasts – outside the world of Formula One. F1 cars stopped using camshaft actuation for valves 20 years ago. They’re all pneumatic actuation and computer-controlled, nowadays.
Researchers have created the first computational model to track engine performance from one combustion cycle to the next for a new type of engine that could dramatically reduce oil consumption and the emission of global-warming pollutants.
A key portion of this research…hinges on designing engines so that their intake and exhaust valves are no longer driven by mechanisms connected to the pistons. The innovation would be a departure from the way automotive engines have worked since they were commercialized more than a century ago.
Because the valves’ timing would no longer be restricted by the pistons’ movement, they could be more finely tuned to allow more efficient combustion of diesel, gasoline and alternative fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, Gregory M. Shaver said.
The concept, known as variable valve actuation, would enable significant improvements in conventional gasoline and diesel engines used in cars and trucks and for applications such as generators, he said. The technique also enables the introduction of an advanced method called homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI.
The homogeneous charge compression ignition technique would make it possible to improve the efficiency of gasoline engines by 15 percent to 20 percent, making them as efficient as diesel engines while nearly eliminating smog-generating nitrogen oxides, Shaver said.
Shaver and his fellow researchers presume best-use on hybrids. Of course, the technology improves all the flavors of internal combustion engines.
It hardly needs to be noted – that this kind of research could have started decades ago. The only negative impact will be on oil company profits. Tsk-tsk.
Overdue.
Electronic valve actuation would eliminate most of the valve train and make for much more precise control. This will make for a more efficient engine operation.
As evidenced in F1 cars this technology has been around for a while. I would think that engines could be produced using less resources, would be lighter, and more powerful. So why hasn’t the auto industry developed the technology?
F1 cars stopped using camshaft actuation for valves 20 years ago. They’re all pneumatic actuation and computer-controlled, nowadays.
Now if we can just get that price under $500,000 each, we can all have one.
I’m not sure that volume production is going to be all that much help.
If I remember correctly, this has been around on bigger diesel semis and such for a long time? Heck, I thought Honda and GM were playing with this already, but then again maybe my memory is wrong.
Article from December:
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/22/behold-the-cam-less-future/
Camshafts were removed out of F1 engines for a reason.
These engines reach nearly 20,000 rpm’s. A camshaft cannot operate properly at those speeds. Pneumatics was the only way to go. Just as military technology bleeds over to the civilian world, so too should F1 technology. However car manufacturers and oil companies are in no hurry to give us anything that would actually benefit the consumer.
Camshafts were removed out of F1 engines for a reason.
Uh, for the record, F1 engines still have camshafts.
The air actuation just replaces the springs. Everything else still works the same.
I bet the environmentalists would be opposed to this. Imagaine a humvee with better performance and gets 50 mpg. If that happened, why would anyone switch to an electric car?
It’s OK, chuck. We’ll take up a collection and send you for a course on logic. Don’t know if we can sort out the political and psychological problems, though. 🙂
Here’s a great 2 min. video from Shell, re: evolution of F1 cars. Nice production values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlaNJALet4
Ever seen an F1 steering wheel? Let’s see ’em talk on a cell phone while driving this.
http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/645.html
Only if you tell people that this technology is used on F1 cars it would sell otherwise it would be the same “If it doesn’t have 200+ horsepower and sucks one gallon every 10 miles then it’s a gay car!”
I’m more impressed by this.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
I’m sure part of the issue with this is the increased complexity of the design. With a camshaft, it is relatively easy to know if all valves are operating correctly. If each valve is indepedently controlled, you could have one or two that fail, even partially, and it kills the efficiency as well as damages other engine parts. This will not be a zero-cost replacement for today’s technology, even if every car was using this (so you have all the efficiencies of scale).
I don’t get the logic of people blaming this on the greedy oil companies. Last I checked, they don’t make cars. Car manufacturers have not gone this route, because consumer demand has not encouraged them to. If a car company thought they could make more money making super-efficient, highly-tuned cars, they would, and there is in fact a small market for these (in comparison to the overall market).
However, consumer demand drives the big SUVs, because nobody wants to be without their own road tank (who wants to be without one when they might have to drive 8 of their friends to lunch – oh the humanity). We need to stop the obsession with the big cars (which are also dangerous to those who choose to be environmentally aware and drive smaller cars).
Please try to think critically. Don’t allow your political biases to overwhelm logic. There are plenty at fault here, and we all need to be moving to more efficent vehicles (and more importantly, changing our lifestyles so we don’t have to drive so much), but make sure you think it through.
#13 – try stepping outside that ivory tower for a moment or two. If you think American car manufacturers haven’t colluded with oil companies – I have some old stock to sell you in, say, the original Los Angeles transit system.
When profits reflect consumption, there’s no incentive to reduce consumption. The day that American consumers spontaneously start making decisions based on common sense – is the day that ad agencies, politicians and priests disappear in a poof of electrons.
F1 engineers have shown us that it can be done, now Detroit needs to make it durable enough to last 150,000+ miles. If one of those actuators breaks then it’s “Kablamo!” See how well your four-banger Prius engine runs when it’s down a cylinder.
Also if I could get a 2.4 litre V8 engine that cranks 18,000rpm that would be fabulous.
#12, Scott, that’s one cool electric car, isn’t it? Wish I could afford one, base price — $92,000. I’d like to get that Ariel F1 lookalike we saw a few days ago, it’s a lot less $$ and just 4 cyl.
http://www.arielatom.com/?gclid=CJmK0pOGhIwCFSZghgodi22YvA
Chuck was absolutely right in #8. There already has been a protest from an environmental group over hybrid SUV development. It’s not enough to create more efficient vehicles, those sacksocrap want to tell what kind of vehicle to drive too.
It would be great to see some of this tech. Hybrids can probably be made useful, I don’t think all electric can be. I’ll change my tune on that when someone demonstrates an electric that can haul 4 adults plus camping gear 450mi @75mph non-stop (except to pee) recharge in 5 minutes and do it again in one day. I can do that in any gas powered vehicle right now.
OK,
Think about this.
Old proven tech…That has SOME how disappeared…Or costs WAY to much.
Independant suspension.
ALL wheel drive.
5 speed transmission(not counting overdrive)
which is cheaper Cast iron, or cast aluminum, and why we are using the more expencive.
Why are we making Fuel injection complecated…
why are the computers in cars EXPENCIVE, its only a couple of EEproms.
We have Large cars they get better gas milage then the little ones, and they are 20 years old.
Cost, Cost, cost…why so expencive? There is an average of $10,000 profit on every car…So that rebate and lower prices REALLY dont mean SQUAT.
Blocking of IMPROVED imports. they have cars in europe that get over 50mpg.. With Diesal.
Tarriff’s are killing the US more then anything else.
We’ve been lied to sence the 70’s about alternatives.
We could be useing turbin driven Hydrogen/methane fuel expandion engines, or even Steam(water power)…
#13 – GeekPirateRoberts,
Actually, it was the auto manufacturers that drove the demand for SUVs. They make more money on them. They had/have fewer safety and other restrictions and taxes due to being “light trucks.” It was actually a difficult sell for Americans that previously wanted cars not trucks. Lots of marketing ultimately did the trick though.
#16 – BubbaRay,
I’m hoping for the price to come down. I’m also waiting for the sedan. I don’t need 0-60 in 4 seconds. I need to keep my license. I also have a lot longer to wait, until NYC garages have a setup for getting electric cars charged and the correct customers charged. They’d need metered outlets for each car.
#17 – TheGlobalHarmer,
I agree about not legislating use of hybrids. If gasoline were appropriately priced, people would buy the vehicles that met their needs, rather than their desire to get external gratification from saying ‘Hey Y’all, check out my honking big-ass SUV.’
Some people really have a need for an SUV. They should be able to get the most fuel efficient model that meets their needs. I was getting about 40 MPG from the one I rented in Belize. It got us through a lot.
Yup, price gas appropriately – about 1.50 /gal. then we could be free and drive what we want.
This is not really all that new or bleeding edge. Toyota and Honda have both had variable valve timing rigs on the market for several years. They are not totally disconnected from the pistons, but the principle is already in practice to improve performance and efficiency.
Toyota is about to to knock the American car companies out of the SUV and truck markets too. Then the Michigan senators will start voting for higher CAFe mileage, and then mileage will go up, and then people will drive more since their costs have gone down, and then pollution will be the same as before.
#19, Scott, until NYC garages have a setup for getting electric cars charged and the correct customers charged
That infrastructure would be more feasible and less expensive than the proposed hydrogen tech. And the power companies would just love it. (So would I in one of those cool Teslas. The Tesla sedan looks great.)
Can’t even work on a car anymore, “no user serviceable parts inside.”
mechanic here: camshafts are still used, they have not been eliminated. the plan is to use solenoids to do all of the valvetrain work. its just not fast enough yet. even after all that, its still way expensive, and it still uses gas.
Bah! If you wana see a revolutionary engine design try the Massive Yet Tiny engine google it, or check the article on American Antigravity – Basically a rotary engine with pistons – no valves, no camshafts. Ultra efficient.
Why go through all the trouble to re engineer and retool your engine production when it is much cheaper to grease your congressman to avoid fuel efficiency requirements that have any meaning.
Status quo
Before you get all excited about the Tesla, be aware that the company has not allowed it to be driven by anyone outside the company. When independent engineers and writers give it the thumbs up, I’ll get excited. And there’s still that nagging exploding battery thing…
26,
VERY true.
They have been making promises sence the 70’s…
They got Lighter, smaller, and STILL didnt improve much.
I have a 1986 Olds, that gets 30mpg…This is a mid isze car…Why arent he Little ones getting 50mpg..AT LEAST.
27,
The worry I have is the disposal of USED batteries…
I posted a link to a site ABOVE, that talks about SUGAR as batteries.
#27 – mrdweeb,
What nagging exploding battery thing? You mean the one poorly documented alleged case in the EV-1?
#23 – BubbaRay,
Yes, definitely more practical than hydrogen. And, it replaces that annoying question of where the hydrogen is coming from (think gas and oil, thanks W.) with the annoying question of where the electricity comes from. But, at least we have technologies to get electricity without gas and oil. Hydrogen, even if we get it from solar power separating water or some such, is really tough to transport, much harder than natural gas.