Saw this on YouTube and thought it was worth a share,

Looks like an awesome idea with great gains, I'm sure the cost is too high at the minute!

That's really cool, especially from koenigsegg, I would have thought a bigger car company would have been first at such a massive renovation/redesign of major engine components.

Awesome

madness!

Especially the plans of using an air tank

mans gunna be rich!!

Air kicks in Yo

this technology has been around for quite a while but it's nice to see a car manufacturer developing it making it more reliable and efficient, hopefully it reaches mainstream cars in the near future.

That's really cool, especially from koenigsegg, I would have thought a bigger car company would have been first at such a massive renovation/redesign of major engine components.

Its not Koenigsegg if you listen carefully, they are working with an external company researching this. (Cargine)

Also they are not the first, several big engine manufacturers have been developing this technology for around 3-4 years now.

Edited 20 February, 201313 yr by higgo

NVH pants too- been around for a long time now, F1 motors used pneumatic valvetrain a long while back.

Lotus, Mahle, Ilmor and I guess Ricardo have all done demo vehicles with camless systems. Regarding mainstream OEM, a little company called Fiat have done something (quite a few years back now):

I don't agree that it makes the engine shorter- it doesn't, if you look at even a 15 year old VW 16v head they use a roller rocker and sink the camshaft axis level with that of the tappet, meaning it's always shorter than anything (solenoid or cam) acting directly on the valve (i.e. above it)

Deffinately the way things are going, but won't be properly common for another few years, FPT charge a premium on the 500 partly to cover the cost of the twin-air system.

Old old news.

And air injection? That's something iv been thinking about for ages.

Pretty clever still, but as far as "new technology" goes, this isn't it lol.

New to me

Old old news.

And air injection? That's something iv been thinking about for ages.

Pretty clever still, but as far as "new technology" goes, this isn't it lol.

Air injection (presume you're talking about secondary air) for light off has also been around years.

Should point out Fiat's Twin Air still uses a camshaft but has oil control solenoids to vary valve actuation. A more conventional system, but still expensive.

I think processor power inside an EMS/ECU is also a limiting factor, aside from the cost and durability issues.

Very promising tech though.

It's still a piston engine. Up down up down up down, thousands of times a minute, how much weight is doing that..?! How much energy does that use up..?! The piston engine is crap and we're using up all our resources with it. Cams use a fraction of the energy a crank does, compressing air isn't free, i can't see anything worth getting exited about.

I hope to be able to make a prototype of my centrifugal engine this year. It'll probably be the equivalent of a radio controlled vehicle piston engine in size, much as i'd like to start with a 50cc equivalent. Even still, it will be equivalent to a three cylinder (like a wankel chamber is equivalent two cylinders).

I made a prototype four years ago but not a running model, only operable by hand. But turning it by hand it sucked air in one end and pushed it out the other. It also compressed air 10:1 during the cycle. So it should work.

There are a few issues with the design though, i think it'll have a lack of torque, and the prototype could last just a few minutes running, but if my current investment budget of about £10 a week can be raised i'm sure challenges can be overcome. A running model should sort that.

So, what does it have instead Mikey?

Old or new, it's very interesting. How is the air compressed? Does the engine work as a small compressor alread?

Suppose you could lock off the exhaust valves and leave the inlet open. The inlet tract would go positive pressure, rather than vacuum. One way valve and use a tank to fill it.

It's still a piston engine. Up down up down up down, thousands of times a minute, how much weight is doing that..?! How much energy does that use up..?! The piston engine is crap and we're using up all our resources with it. Cams use a fraction of the energy a crank does, compressing air isn't free, i can't see anything worth getting exited about.

I hope to be able to make a prototype of my centrifugal engine this year. It'll probably be the equivalent of a radio controlled vehicle piston engine in size, much as i'd like to start with a 50cc equivalent. Even still, it will be equivalent to a three cylinder (like a wankel chamber is equivalent two cylinders).

I made a prototype four years ago but not a running model, only operable by hand. But turning it by hand it sucked air in one end and pushed it out the other. It also compressed air 10:1 during the cycle. So it should work.

There are a few issues with the design though, i think it'll have a lack of torque, and the prototype could last just a few minutes running, but if my current investment budget of about £10 a week can be raised i'm sure challenges can be overcome. A running model should sort that.

I have no words...

100yrs+ Automotive Industry < MikeyMK

Shitroen are using compressed air as a hybrid system in their 2016 range:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-ca...air-hybrid-tech

Yet another way of getting their CO2 emissions down, and apparently cheaper than electrical hybridisation, but probably not going to gain you much in terms of real life fuel economy. In theory still attractive to the consumer though, due to lower tax band etc.

yoofs hate for mikey grows.... lmao

sounds cool though, but fuk piston engines either way. rotary <3

when/if they find a soloution to the apex seals ect, they would be sooo goood.

Rotor tips/apex seals aside, Wankels aren't great for partial throttle fuel economy or tailpipe emissions.

Makes them an interesting prospect for an engine in series hybrid range-extended EV though - their full-throttle economy is okay, NVH is good, they're compact and the emissions don't matter so much as you're not necessarily running the engine for the whole duration of an emissions cycle. Probably why Audi are using one in their A1 E-tron.

yeah they are pretty shocking, 25MPG from an rx8 - if your lucky!

there just so cool though!

plus the fact you can bolt a load together haha. the 6 rotor that was recently built sounds like a F1 engine!

interested to see this A1!

It's still a piston engine. Up down up down up down, thousands of times a minute, how much weight is doing that..?! How much energy does that use up..?! The piston engine is crap and we're using up all our resources with it. Cams use a fraction of the energy a crank does, compressing air isn't free, i can't see anything worth getting exited about.

I hope to be able to make a prototype of my centrifugal engine this year. It'll probably be the equivalent of a radio controlled vehicle piston engine in size, much as i'd like to start with a 50cc equivalent. Even still, it will be equivalent to a three cylinder (like a wankel chamber is equivalent two cylinders).

I made a prototype four years ago but not a running model, only operable by hand. But turning it by hand it sucked air in one end and pushed it out the other. It also compressed air 10:1 during the cycle. So it should work.

There are a few issues with the design though, i think it'll have a lack of torque, and the prototype could last just a few minutes running, but if my current investment budget of about £10 a week can be raised i'm sure challenges can be overcome. A running model should sort that.

I have no words...

100yrs+ Automotive Industry < MikeyMK

Can say that for anyone coming up with anything new today. But its crossed my mind too that I can't have discovered something so groundbreaking, surey! If Honda wrote it you may have responded differently, yet they're not as far outside the box as I am.

I'm hardly Dunlop, Bell or Edison.. but like them I intend to focus on what I'm doing than what the current infrastructure dictates. Wankel was arguably in the same position as the piston engine, which derived from gunpowder blowing a cork in a barrel, itself influenced by a gun itself, had actually dated as far back as the 1700s (but was only recognizable as a piston engine from the early 1800s).

Adam/Simon I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.. Just to confirm it sucks air in, compresses it, then wants to turn by itself on expansion. It then squeezes air out so it can suck more in on the next cycle - there lies its problem being an internal combustion engine, but with it being so mechanically simple it wastes little energy in frictional loss.

Sorry mikey,I was referring to the 'air cam'. Yours sounds equally interesting though

Same as you Simon, trying to see how it can be as responsive as a cam for the same required energy or less. Air is pretty squashy stuff, it takes some energy to compress it very hard extremely quickly (not to go into the heat that generates). It's stretchy too..

Still looks fairly conventional regarding valve springs too. Though there's no cambelt to fail, that's not to say this isn't capable of crashing components either.

I can see how valve timing can be exactly as it's needed at any time, though.

To be honest I have a working prototype of an engine which is must more efficient, better on emissions and develops more power and torque than any current derivative OR things going through development.

However I can't tell anyone what it is, or show anyone, and everytime I get opportunity to prove myself, I'll have an excuse.

Ciao.

Ahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha. Oh, Nick.