PDA

View Full Version : The Perfect FSAE Specific Engine



Patrick W. Crane
04-10-2003, 07:07 PM
If you had the resources and the time, what type on engine would you design and build for the competition, would you use forced induction, and what would be your first choice for transmission? The Current top engine/transmission layout is just a four cylinder bike engine and the transmission that came with it, but as far as the ideal layout goes, it's pretty poor (high center of gravity and such).

Personally, I think an over square flat six turbo coupled to a custom five speed sequential transaxle would be my choice.

Easy to Balance and SMOOTH
Low center of gravity
Enough cylinders to avoid most of the pulsing effects
Short crankcase
Turbo to widen the power band (adds weight though and at high rpm it doesn't help as the air can't pass through the restrictor fast enough anyway... hmmm, maybe a bypass for high rpm...)

The only current custom engine I know of is the V8 by UWW (also what got me thinking about engines). I have to say, hats off to you guys - very impressive. I wish we had the facilities here at UVic to take on such an ambitious project. But who knows... maybe in 10 or 15 years a custom engine will be needed to stay competitive.

Comments?

Richard Lewis
04-10-2003, 10:45 PM
Bah! Why reinvent the wheel? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Winston is obviously a Porsche fanatic, suggesting a flat 6. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Personally I really like the UWW layout, though I am not a big V8 fan. However, it does present a low CoG and many interesting advances. If I could do anything at all, I think I'd go with a small displacement 4 cylinder turbo, attached to a transaxle.

The reasoning is rather unscientific I'm afraid.
a) 4 pulses should get adequate flow through the restrictor, and spool the turbo nicely.
b) I think rotating inertia would become a bigger issue as you gain cylinders.
c) I love the transaxle idea as opposed to a tranny/chain driven differential.

In the end I think the real enemy isn't power, so much as weight and area under the torque curve. Cost may be an enemy too though.

Cool post, now go back to studying! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-------------------------
UVIC Formula SAE Team
http://members.shaw.ca/drax77/Formula%20UVic%20Sig.jpg
http://uvic.fsae.ca

gug
05-05-2003, 07:49 AM
Drysdale - 750cc v8, 19,000rmp! (http://home.mira.net/~iwd/750specs.html)

oh how i wish we could run 750cc without a restrictor! and the small matter of an open checkbook might come in handy... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

Alfonso Ochoa
05-09-2003, 07:51 PM
I agree with richard. Small engine, like 400-450 cc, with a forced induction system, i would like a supercharger better.

Alfonso Ochoa Vega
cabezota311@hotmail.com
F-SAE USB Team, Venezuela

Maxwell
05-31-2003, 07:30 PM
Freedom motors http://www.freedom-motors.com/ has a 530cc rotary engine with 110hp they use for baja cars (which get up to 43mph). Port it, turbocharge it and use an air to air intercooler. It would be infinately more complex than simply strapping a CBR on, but weight savings would be huge(in terms of the engine itself) with a completely different powercurve. The turbo could be almost directly attatched to the exhaust housing (simple packing). The size could allow placement closer to the center of gravity.

Scott Wordley
05-31-2003, 11:17 PM
Yeah, a rotary would be cool, only problem is the engine has to be a four stroke.

I'm a big fan of the boxer idea though.

Regards,

Scott Wordley & Roan Lyddy Meaney
Monash FSAE Wingmen
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

Maxwell
06-01-2003, 06:09 AM
Please forgive me- I am not on any FSAE team and am not aware of all restrictions. A rotary, however, is generally considered a 4-stroke by most engineering based companies. Mazda declared it's engine a 2-stroke because each rotor has only one intake and one exhaust stroke per revolution, as a two stroke does. BUT it has seperate intake, compression, power, and exhaust strokes.
Also, on a four-stroke there is 1 intake stroke per 2 revolutions, so if you look at it from a volumetric standpoint, displacement is the amount of combustion chamber volume inhaled over 2 revolutions. A rotary, with 1 intake stroke per revolution, must be measured as having 2 combustion chambers per rotor.
Can someone please tell me if the concept of a rotary is banned, or is it just the general 2-stroke notion?

gug
06-01-2003, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
from the official rules
3.5.1.1) engine limitations
the engine used to power the car must be a 4-stroke piston engine with a displacement not exceeding 610cc per cycle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
which sucks, cause rotarys rock. would probably help appeal to the sponsors too, a bit less mainstream, a bit more interesting.
personally, i would love to run a 2-stroke. i think suzuki made a factory turbo'd 500 that made 140hp or something?
i wonder how much it would affect the competition if the engine rules were removed? as it is we dont get too much time wide open throttle, i think without the restrictor some teams might actually go to smaller engines to reduce weight.
and some would go bigger too. west washington made a 600cc v8 with these rules, they would probably go for a 350 chev, "a real v8" if the rules werent there. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

Nam Tran
06-01-2003, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Can someone please tell me if the concept of a rotary is banned, or is it just the general 2-stroke notion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rotaries are indeed banned. This is discussed in the 2003 Important Documents.

http://www.sae.org/students/fsae2003rules.doc

MercerFSAE C. Burch
06-01-2003, 09:47 PM
Rotary power would be great for this competition but the rules state that the engine must be a "piston" powered engine. Rotaries do not have pistons. It isn't the 4 vs 2 stroke conflict that is the problem with the rules, it is the piston part that excludes the rotaries.

The other bad part about a rotary, were they to be allowed in this competition, is that a team would virtually have to build one from scratch. That pretty much excludes just about every team except for WWU.

From a technology point of view, it is like banning a better technology for the sake of the more common and well-known technology. Similar to forcing cars to used grooved tires instead of slicks.

Chris
Mercer University Drive!
Coming to an Auto-X near you, May 2004!

gug
06-01-2003, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MercerFSAE C. Burch:

The other bad part about a rotary, were they to be allowed in this competition, is that a team would virtually have to build one from scratch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im assuming that you mean there is no mass produced rotary that is small enough? the power source in those twin bladed military choppers, the big ones used for transport (sorry i cant remember the name) is a 90hp rotary. they are for sale from somewhere in the states, weigh about 20kgs i think. anyway, designed to run at constant speed (of 80,000 rpm i think) and take a week to get there, but combining that with a cvt would produce an excellent car.
seen one go bang before though, i wouldnt want to be trying to fix it. the things dont just start running badly, its 80,000rmp to 0 instantly. it was being used as a power source on some geophysical instruments.
if anyone can fill in the gaps in my memory here you are welcome to.

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

James Waltman
06-02-2003, 09:45 AM
gug,

I think that you are talking about a turbine. Everyone else is talking about a Wankel Rotary.

James Waltman
waltmaj@cc.wwu.edu
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Formula SAE
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Scott Harsila
06-02-2003, 03:03 PM
Yea, I am pretty sure he is talking about the Chinook helicopter built by Boeing. As far as I know it has a couple of 1,000HP+ turbines in it. I think unlimited hydroplanes use them for power. Don't think they would work for an FSAE car http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

University of Washington
Formula SAE 2001-2003

Marc Jaxa-Rozen
06-02-2003, 03:37 PM
I'm sure he's talking about the electric power source/APU, which is indeed a small gas turbine, not a Wankel.

http://www.gasturbine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/solar.htm

They're pretty cheap to buy but getting that thing to propel an FSAE would be a different story altogether.

acracker
06-02-2003, 03:49 PM
I dunno guys, do you think we could finally get the air to go supersonic through the restrictor if it was being pulled by a turbine engine? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Anyway I believe that a better engine can be made for this competition. I'm still wondering what design would be better- a small bore, long stroke, lower rev, forced induction, with a wide ratio tranny, or a small displacement high winding engine tuned around the restrictor?

dr47watson
06-02-2003, 04:07 PM
The D model Chinook has two 3,500 (4,500 emergency) horsepower gas turbines and the T62 apu gas turbine linked by Marc. The T62 in the Chinook weighs about 70 pounds and puts out 65 horsepower. They are obscenely loud and guzzle JP-4 (diesel fuel for all intents and purposes). If you are in the US Army starting the T62 (necessary for stating the main engines) requires pressurizing a 3,500-psi hydraulic accumulator BY HAND PUMP. If you are an Aussie, you press a little button and an electric motor pumps it up for you (unless you left the battery plugged in and then you get to pump by handhttp://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Any one who appreciates mechanical things owes to themselves the spectacle of a Chinook run-up. If you can get a ride in one even better! I was a Chinook Flight Engineer in the US Army for four years. If you want to know anything else about these beasts let me know.

Rich

aka dr(CH)47(D)watson

gug
06-02-2003, 06:08 PM
cheers ppl, that is exactly what i was talking about. sorry for trying to call it a wankel rotary, no more late night posts for me.

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

PatClarke
06-03-2003, 12:32 AM
Now that the thread has encompassed turbine engines, ho long before someone tries a compound ? Pratt and Whitney did this in the years just before the Jet age. (Lockheed Constellation was one application) The idea is to harness the spare grunt developed in the turbocharger and gear it back into the crankshaft.
I seem to recall that in the days of the turbo 1.5 litre Formula One, Keith Duckworth proposed a compound engine to the FIA. The formula had generated monster engines with more than 1000 HP in qualifying trim from straightforward turbo engines, yet here was Duckworth suggesting a loophole in the rules that would develop MUCH more power, especially with extra fuel dumped into the exhaust. Blanching at the idea of a 2,500 HP engine in a 1200lb car, the FIA promptly nixed that idea and Turbo engines in general soon after.
Just a thought =]
Pat D'Rat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

gug
06-03-2003, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Suddenlee:
Now that the thread has encompassed turbine engines, ho long before someone tries a compound?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its a bit vauge, but i think a compund engine is outlawed by the rules right? "The engine used to power the car must be a four-stroke piston engine..."
you are wondering when someone will try it in f-sae right?

"I come from a land down under,
Where beer does flow and men chunder"

PatClarke
06-03-2003, 02:54 AM
Gug, when you get to know me better, you will recognise when a little leg pulling is happening =]
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

imajerk
06-03-2003, 04:05 AM
The perfect engine would weigh nothing, develop infinite hp at any RPM and use no fuel.

I think motorcycle engines are well suited to FSAE. They weigh very little, produce good hp and have a gearbox built into the engine block.

Stephen Soroosh
06-17-2003, 04:27 PM
I agree with imajerk. The biggest challenge in FSAE is not building an engine that will make a million hp it is putting the power to the ground and making the car handel properly. The Honda F4i is the perfect motor if you ask me. Reliable, easy to modify and easy to find. As far as the V8 by UWW...good idea but you need the engine to run in order to power the car. Still...props on a good design.

~Soroosh

If man is not made for God, why is he happy only in God?

Blaisé Pascal (1623-62)

Mike131313
06-17-2003, 07:58 PM
Just to clarify I am a little unfamiliar with the term pulsing. Does that refer to the pulse generated by the power or combustion stroke?
Just curious engines really aren't my thing YET
Thanks Mike

BA
07-14-2003, 08:19 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think pulsing is a byproduct of the intake strokes and the restrictor plate. The idea is that the restrictor plate can't bring in the amount of air at the same rate that the pistons draw into the cylinders. This generally occurs on engines with fewer cylinders because each gulp of air is larger than engines with more cylinders. I think this is one of the things Western Washington was going for with their V8, take smaller bites and allow the intake to keep up.

There may be more things involved such as harmonics and flow paths, but that's what I understand so far.

BA
07-30-2003, 08:19 AM
My idea of the perfect FSAE engine is a 600cc V6 attached with a transaxle and active differential. The whole thing would be used as a stressed member. The V6 part of it would help with restrictor plate pulsing problems and possibly flow restrictions because of lower RPM's. The transaxle part would allow for a differential that needs no adjustment.

Just a thought.

James Waltman
10-24-2003, 09:27 AM
We got a few of these in at the shop yesterday. I thought some of you might like to see them.

Side
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/DSC03906.JPG

Close up
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/DSC03907.JPG

Other side
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/DSC03908.JPG

Top
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/DSC03911.JPG

We're going to try to pull one apart soon. I know that they are not exactly leagal for FSAE but we have a few ideas.

James Waltman
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Ryan Schoffer
10-25-2003, 09:03 PM
i'd go with a single cylinder air cooled engine in the 500cc range - use a programmable FI computer for it and you're good to go

aluminum block, head, lightweight everything else

it might make 10 less hp than the current crop of N/A F4i motors, but it would be around half the weight when you take into account the intake, exhaust etc.

couple it to a 5 speed sequential transaxle and lay both on their sides for super low CG

Vehicle electronics leader

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

A Reinke
11-05-2003, 08:48 PM
i kinda wanted to play with a small DOHC v-twin and see if the torque it develops is better in a small car like the forumla car.

on the rotary subject, i believe Suzuki had a bike with a rotary engine back in the 70's or 80's...it was a very small production bike, but it was a smaller motor i imagine.

~Adam

James Waltman
11-06-2003, 09:06 AM
Sorry the link went down on the pictures - here they are again.

Side
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/Small%20Wankels/DSC03906.JPG

Close Up
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/Small%20Wankels/DSC03907.JPG

Other Side
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/Small%20Wankels/DSC03908.JPG

Top
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/Small%20Wankels/DSC03911.JPG

James Waltman
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/
Vehicle Research Institute at
Western Washington University

Boberoni
11-06-2003, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...do you think we could finally get the air to go supersonic through the restrictor ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

uh ... choke flow?

once it reaches sonic you have reached the limit. The only way to get more air in is to increase the inlet pressure. If only the endurance course had longer straights we could use a ram air setup. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Axle_Greece
12-17-2003, 07:43 PM
hey, a compound engine, huh?

I thought of dumping fuel into a large exhaust plenum/combustion chamber, with a small compressor bypass tap for easier startup, then routing this plenum into a turbocharger. This would improve spooling and vastly increase the pumping power of the turbo, however since you are generating a shockwave in the restrictor plate, no matter how much "suck" you have, the simple fact that mach 1+ flow is incompressible means that you can't pull air faster than that. However, you CAN push air faster than that, which is why a turbo must be mounted BEHIND the restrictor. Otherwise, the restrictor would have diddly squat effect on the performance of the engines in the long run. Perhaps not diddly squat, but you'd still be able to beef the engine back up to stock horsepower or better.

However, is there a way to prevent the shockwave from forming in the first place? Higher temperature air has a higher local speed of sound than lower temperature air. Higher pressure air also has a higher local speed of sound than lower pressure air. So, what you need is a way to increase temperature and/or pressure in the restrictor orifice, without thermally choking the flow. Too bad we can't use a total loss liquid nitrogen intercooler followed up by an exhaust driven heat exchanger. Get cold dense air in the orifice, then heat her up like a ramjet, then you've got air that can be pulled half again as fast as it should have been able to be pulled in the first place. U still form a shcokwave at some point, but it's formed farther along the engine's rpm curve. Oh yeah, and you're ALWAYS pulling vacuum as long as the derivative of the engine's angular momentum is greater than or equal to zero.

That's my input for the time being... any questions?

(I am a biology major, so if i'm off on my aerodynamics facts, please grill me like a rack of lamb - the success of a pending patent application for a ramjet engine might depend on it!)

"They say time is of the essence... give me some and maybe i'll get the essence!"

Ninja2
05-06-2004, 02:13 PM
I think the best engine would be a 610cc naturally aspirated V16. Of course, it would be too long and heavy to be really competitive, but can you imagine the sound??? Awesome.

Other than that, Im all for 2 strokes http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Ciaran Branney

Team Leader
Chalmers University Formula Student Team

Mike Shaw
05-06-2004, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MercerFSAE C. Burch:
The other bad part about a rotary, were they to be allowed in this competition, is that a team would virtually have to build one from scratch. That pretty much excludes just about every team except for WWU.

From a technology point of view, it is like banning a better technology for the sake of the more common and well-known technology. Similar to forcing cars to used grooved tires instead of slicks.

Chris
Mercer University Drive!
Coming to an Auto-X near you, May 2004! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually, we could either find a used and abused Norton F1 and take the 588 cc twin rotor out of it, or just copy their engine design and make your own. Then, port the hell out of it!

http://www.mjp.co.uk/bikes/nortonf1/picture%20html/pic84.html

http://www.motorbikes.be/en/Norton/1994/F1/

http://www.jpsnorton.com/racebikes.asp

and, to clairify, a rotary engine is more or less a 4 cycle - 2 stroke engine. 4 combustion cycles (intake, compression, combustion, and exhaust) take place in different areas of the engine. 2 strokes because for every rotation of the eccentric shaft, the rotor rotates 1/3 of a rev, but for every rotor rotation, there are 3 combustions, resulting in 1 power pulse for every rotation of the e-shaft, like a 2 stroke.

Axle_Greece
05-06-2004, 09:46 PM
allright... here's the thing about rotarys. First off, a two stroke engine doesn't really follow the otto cycle. It does, but it combines different parts into a single motion of the piston. Saying a rotary is a two stroke, four cycle engine is not quite right. It doesn't move a piston back and forth, so there is no stroke to speak of. A reciprocating engine divides the otto cycle into separate steps, accomplished at separate times. A rotary engine, by contrast, separates the parts of the otto cycle in space, while accomplishing them simultaneously. One face of the rotor is performing intake, while the next is performing compression/ignition, and the next is performing the power stroke, and getting ready to exhaust just as the first is coming up on compression.

So, that's why you get so much more power out of an engine with the same displacement as a reciprocating engine. The recip. engine is using it's displacement 1/4 of the time, while the rotary is using it close to 100% of the time. A four rotor engine is ALWAYS producing power, since there's always at least one rotor face coming up on, or just finishing a power stroke. In a four cylinder reciprocating engine, however, you have a raelly big gap in the duty cycle between cylinder firings. That's why rotarys are banned, 'cause a rotary of the same displacement as a recip. engine can produce about 20% more power. As far as transonic flow through the restrictor plate, it's possible. Look for that feature next year on ODU's formula car. There are several ways to increase the local speed of sound in a working fluid. If i say more, you guys might get an idea or two... and have more funding to work quicker on a restrictor compensator...! Anyhow, i'm out for tonight, have to ready my latest TCS revision for on-car testing. This is one happy bio major... who found love with an O-Scope... :-D
night all,
Rion

Homemade WRX
05-06-2004, 10:04 PM
I would have to go with a boxer engine (maybe I'm biased...read the name) 6 cylinder would be prefferable but four could do as well...wouldn't waste time with the turbo though because the hp gains don't seem to be enough(from what I've read) for the added weight... horizontally opposed engine would keep the CG nice and low and I would go with a 5 speed tranny as well...no need for the 6th in competition.
Take it easy, Micah

PatClarke
05-06-2004, 11:42 PM
A boxer engine is a poor packaging choice Micah. The need to accommodate an exhaust (or intake?) system under the engine raises the CoG and the crank line unacceptably for most designs. Now, a wide angle vee might be a better solution. Maybe not http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
PDR

Homemade WRX
05-07-2004, 06:47 AM
good point with the exhaust...I didn't even think about that...a wide angle "V" would be good though

James Waltman
05-07-2004, 12:02 PM
Pat,
If this is a dream engine then why can't the intake enter on the front side and the exhaust exit from the rear? Then nothing hangs down below the engine.

I would think that with some thought to packaging one could run the exhaust or intake under the engine without raising the whole package more than an inch or two. Even if a boxer had to sit a few inches higher than ideal, the CG should still be much lower than any of the popular 600cc motorcycle engines.

Am I missing something?

Denny Trimble
05-07-2004, 01:01 PM
I've heard one reason that Renault F1 went away from the wide-angle V10 was that even though the CG of the engine was lower, the total CG of the car was higher because of it, something about packaging the rest of the components at higher positions.

Dick Golembiewski
05-07-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's why rotarys are banned... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I brought this up in another thread. I happened to be involved at the time of the ban, and was the faculty advisor when we ran a couple of rotary engines in FSAE.

Rotaries were allowed from 1981 through either 1986 or 1987. Prior to 1985, there was no displacement limit in FSAE, and the diameter of the restrictor was larger. In 1984. we ran an OMC snowmobile rotary with a 600cc swept volume. (1200cc reciprocating equivalent)

After I saw some things at the 1984 competition (and had some negative experiences internally), I suggested to the SAE student activities committee (which oversaw all SAE student activities at the time) that some changes might be in order. We gave Bob Woods some guidelines, and he and his people did the rest when they hosted the 1985 competition at UTA. The 600cc limit was enacted that year. (It was later expanded to 610cc to allow for a first overbore.) Bob Sechler took over SAE student activites in early 1985. At my suggestion, we continued the idea of forming a committee to write rules for all SAE student design competitions, and we held our first meeting to discuss the subject at the 1985 Midwest Mini-Baja competition here in Milwaukee.

For various reasons, the committee didn't get started until 1987. In the interim, Bob sent out a survey to a 10-25 folks who had been involved in FSAE. One of the questions was whether 2-stroke and rotary engines should be allowed. (I don't believe that they were separated.) In one or two conference calls we had, a number of folks would only say that "We have to get those things (rotary engines) out of there." (They happened to be faculty advisors who were running piston engines.)

It wasn't any more complicated than that.

Later, we formed a formal committee to formulate rules, and I generated a structure in which individual subcommittees for the various types of competitions reported to an overall committee.

The concerns mentioned may have been discussed over the years, (Save for an appearance in 2000, where Carroll Smith asked me to substitute for him while he was doing the design briefing, I haven't been involved in the rules making process since 1994.), but the initial decision to ban rotary engines wasn't really discussed in depth. It was done on the basis of a survey.

There are, of course, disadvantages to rotary engines, and overcoming them poses an interesting challenge.

By the way, most folks consider them to be equivalent to 4-stroke engines of twice the displacement. The 600cc limit at one time rendered many commercially available rotaries illegal.

- Dick

PatClarke
05-07-2004, 10:08 PM
Hi James,
Of course, on our dream engine the ports can be wherever we wish to put them. Problem with putting them front and back means the engine length would now be very long, or the exhausts or inlet on the forward cylinders would protrude into the drivers area. Whatever, this is fun. Maybe we can develop a system where the exhausts feed back into the intakes and we recharge the spent gas with oxygen fed from the restrictor =] (Dick, I really shouldn't take your advice to try ALL those beers)
Renault adopted a wide angle V engine in F1 for the very reasons we discussed here. Lower the CoG whilst making room for the exhausts under the engine. The reason they have abandoned it is because of the destructive harmonics at the very high RPM used in F1 (over 18,000rpm)

Oh BTW Dick, an American beer from Oregon just won the 'Best beer in the world' competition in Australia this week. Many antipodean brewers with their noses out of joint http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
PDR

BeaverGuy
05-09-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> an American beer from Oregon just won the 'Best beer in the world' competition in Australia this week. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great, just what we need here in Oregon, more reason for all the beer drinking folks to think there actually is a good beer.

drivetrainUW-Platt
07-19-2004, 08:46 PM
Dick,
i have one of those old OMC Evinrude/Johnson rotaries sitting in my shop at home that i bought from a local junk yard for shits and giggles, was meant to be a gokart project, but never had any success with the electrical components(some things had been robbed since it was at a junkyard), It is susposed to be rated at 45hp, plenty for fun, I would really appreciate it if you (or anyone else familiar with the engine) would contact me, duwem@uwplatt.edu and see if your knowledge would assist my project. that little thing runnin at 8 grand is one of those things i would really love to hear!!!!

Ben Beacock
07-20-2004, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Blanching at the idea of a 2,500 HP engine in a 1200lb car, the FIA promptly nixed that idea and Turbo engines in general soon after. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, blasting the guy behind you with jet exhaust would certainly wreak havoc on their aerodynamics (and make for one sweat drenched 'pilot')

Dick Golembiewski
07-20-2004, 07:37 AM
Mike,

I don't have any of the data we generated 20+ years ago. 45bhp seems about right.

The guy who developed the engine retired from OMC and was one of my (part time) colleagues at MSOE. His name is Bud Gandi, and I believe that he still teaches the occasional class there.

- Dick

drivetrainUW-Platt
07-20-2004, 10:12 AM
Dick,
Could you get me some contact information for him, I'm about an hour away from MSOE, would be appreciated.
thanks
also curious what other ppl have come up with as far as home built SAE inspired go-karts go.

Daves
07-24-2004, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you had the resources and the time, what type on engine would you design and build for the competition? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would probably design two engines (for two different styles of cars), both turbocharged for drivability and higher efficiency. Also, both would incorporate aluminum blocks and heads. The first would be a 400cc SOHC V-twin. The second would be a 599cc SOHC V-4, using F4i (OEM-style or aftermarket) connecting rods, pistons, injectors, and spark plugs.

The transmissions would definitely use gears for reliability and fun (not cvt). How many gears would depend on the performance of the engines.