What do make of this ?

[Billy_Hunt]

Just picked up on something at the Jaguar website about the recent testing
"Benetton tester Mark Webber put some miles on Renault’s wide-angle and unusual sounding V10."
Have Renault got something up their sleeves or am I reading nothing into something.
What do they mean by wide-angle ?
and why does it sound unusual ?
I'm quite sure Renault have not been sleeping while they have been away.

[steve nielsen]

The rumours are that the Renault engine will do 20.000 rpm.
maybe that is the reason for that sound.

[marcus]

this is what i have read on this new engine from Renault.

"The French unit , with its wide angled layout, is designed to keep the centre of gravity as low as possible.
The penalty of this layout is that the 111 degree engine is much wider than rival V10's such as Mercedes (72 degrees) and ferrari (88 degress) that it is believed to have required a particulary compact exhaust system"

so in keeping the centre of gravity low I guess they are able to set the car up better and im not sure why this is and the sound obviously comes from the new exhaust system...will it work??? we will have to wait and see.

[Jeanburrasca81]

20.000 rpm!? Not bad if it doesn't break.

[Tris]

I read about engines revving at 20,000 rpm + as far back as 1995.

I believe that Ferrari started development work on I seem to remember what they called an "in-line" V12. They got quite fat into the development but I believe that the technology was banned before it's development was complete.

The details in my mind are hazy and my back copies of race car engineering are not "to hand" as they are in storage...

Am I the only one who remembers this?

[Valve Bounce]

This begs the question : Would a flat 10 qualify under FIA rules as a V10?? I suppose the 111 degrees V10 will just allow room beneath the cylinders for an exhaust system but, as Marcus pointed out, this must be very compact to provide the necessary clearance for he drive shaft and hte suspension components. Can someone please post us a cross section so we can have a look!! Or at least direct us to a site to view this!!

[enzo]

If I remember correctly. F1 banned 12 cylinder engines in order to control escalating costs, as they felt that everyone would be forced to go that route. HA! Lot of good that did in the costs department !

Th unusual sound would come from the uneven spacing of cylinder firings.

I don't think the rules have any limits on engine layouts, just limit on the # of cylinders allowed. A flat 10 would be legal.

[Bononi]

Renault began the turbo era in F1...
Surprises can be expected !

[EERO]

20,000 RPM might not be so impossible. Renault was expected to be running pneumatic valves that would permit such high revs. I am sure that it is a combination of all the factors described including engine speed and complex plumbing for the exhaust gasses.

[RIKB]

They are rumoured to be developing an electromagnetic valve operating system, and it is that which would allow the revs to get up to 20,000. I seem to remember reading that mercedes have had a look at this approach too, but they couldn't make it work.

[Valve Bounce]

I suppose if the thing went bang at 20,000, it would be spectacular!!

[Tris]

Going back to the electromagnetic valves.....

If Renault have go them to work they would negate the use of a conventional cam-shaft that has a cost of approximately 300 bhp . The other advantages being a reduction in friction and greater thermodynamic efficiency.

[Valve Bounce]

Yes!! And that would eliminate me!!

[Tris]

The electromagnetic valves would also improve power spread and derivability... They would have significant weight penalty but that would be eliminated by the loss of the cam shaft. I think the real gain is in the derivability…..

Valve_Bounce, you, an endanger species… I hope not

[Valve Bounce]

HEY TRIS - IF THIS CAN ADD 300 BHP (sorry for the caps), this increase in power would be very significant. As you say, it would also increase driveability, and this should give the engine a definite edge at circuits where overtaking is not impossible. Where can we see a cross section of this engine?

[Tris]

Valve_Bounce,

A “conventional cam-shaft” eats up about 300 BHP from a pneumatic valve engine. You would still have to have a cam shaft of some sort that would eat up power so I don’t think that you would suddenly gain 300 BHP... possibly gain around 100 or so...

I have not seen any plans for the engine, or a mock up, yet. But as far as I understand the electromagnetic valve engine will not be racing in 2001. It is being developed for 2002. However I would not be surprised to see Benetton run it in 2001. I think they are trying a bit of “suck it and see” with it in testing.

BMW looked at the concept but they could not make it work and believe they can make the difference in other areas.

If this technology does touch down, when will the FIA limit the engine displacement capacity down to 2500cc? 2003?

[djb]

I'm reading this and tring to picture exactly what, if not a cam, would physically open the valves. I understand the electromagnetic principal-run current thru a magnet and "you can pick up the crushed car and drop it when the juice gets turned off" visual that comes to mind. I could see how a valve could be pulled up away from the cylinder, but how could they be pulled down for intake, etc, without having doo-dads in the way of the piston? Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. It makes sense that without the mass of the cam and the physicalness of the cam hitting the valve, revs would go up-and hp too- but anyway, just wanted to get a laymans description-if thats possible of something that may not actually exist-and if any of you were really working on it, you wouldn't be yakking about it on a forum...

[enzo]

Power consumption for a conventional cam is more around 60 bhp, not 300.

In an electromagnetic system, both opening and closing are via electromagnetic forces. Essentially, it's a variation of what they call a 'linear motor'. The actuater is a series of separately controlled electromagnets, where the positon of the valve is controlled by the strength of the individual coils.

The advantages, besides the obvious ones of weight and power consumption, is that the valve opening curve can be tailored to suit the situation, ie, duration, overlap,and lift can be constantly changed to give both maximum power and economy, something that can't possibly be done with a conventional bumpstick.

I expect that we'll find this system to be standard on all roadcars within 10 years, maybe less.

[Dino IV]

Weight is actually the biggest disadvantage of the camless systems. That probably explains the unusual large V-angle as well ...

At the Tech Forum we had a discussion about these systems some time ago. We posted quite some pictures so if you want to have a look check the thread here.

[djb]

thanks Dino lV for the reference to what was already discussed, the diagrams make the concept a bit clearer. It will be interesting to see if in fact this is what's being used by Renault.