Radical/Ground Breaking Builds ?

[hoffman900]

The only thing “ground breaking” I think in the last few years has been the turbulent jet ignition. That said, it’s not so ground breaking but more so a successful refinement .

That was a good post, Jon. Confirmed some of what I suspected with the “inventor” crowd.

[rfoll]

I'm late to this party, but I have a comment about this... "posts are far different from the type of posts on ST in the 2005 to 2010 era." Things were more exciting at the track during that period. Friday and Saturday Late Night Drags at Portland International ran until 1 AM. Hundreds of cars of all configurations. I remember seeing a roots blown VW Rabbit. Scores of AWD turbo Mitsubishi Evos. Panteras, Vipers,and Ferraris. Civics on all manner of power adders, some turning 150+mph. When the economy tanked they were all gone, and my guess is it will never be like that again.

[nitro2]

OK, post some examples of anything "Ground Breaking" that is being done anywhere in IC engines.

Looking forward to "Ground Breaking" projects.
Sincerely, few things would interest me more.

Well someone may eventually post something that is "Ground Breaking" (term in quotes), doubtful anyone will post something that is big time Ground Breaking. TFX has Ground Breaking engine technology (I don't mean our TFX cylinder pressure analyzers, I mean actual engine hardware that exists nowhere else). We have a few things, and have sat on them for quite some time hoping to see a good clean shot at marketing. One would have a huge market, however just because something is unique, beneficial and actually works doesn't mean the market is ready for it. There are examples from the past of of good automotive technology being ill timed and flopping (because of the ill timing).

On another front a recent TFX analyzer customer showed us the engine results of what they were doing, it is a unique technology, their own creation, and it was actually a bit of a downer for us because we had worked on a similar technology years ago and did not have success lol. They had success, good for them. How they are doing it I have no idea, but it is most definitely marketable and to the best of my knowledge has not been achieved by anyone else. This was done on a pretty small budget as well, using ingenuity not cubic dollars.

People often forget or don't know that combustion in an engine is nowhere near right in any engine as it currently stands, all the modern technology and massaging via computers and injection etc. etc. etc. has just moved things from the 75% right mark to the 79% right mark on an 80% right scale.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

One would have a huge market, however just because something is unique, beneficial and actually works doesn't mean the market is ready for it. There are examples from the past of of good automotive technology being ill timed and flopping (because of the ill timing).

Yep, the marketing is task #1, that is what drove the performance aftermarket companies that prospered.
The companies that strove for innovation, didn't get far.

The days of making an aftermarket aluminum manifold for a late model performance car (and making money) are over.
Some of those manifolds will sell fewer than 100 pieces ever. After design, prototype, testing, redesign, testing, ( a few more loops of that), tooling, packaging, tech writing you are into the project $200,000-$300,000. With todays sub 10% margins, there is no opportunity to break even.

Then there is the tech challenge. I tried to beat the 2018 Mustang and/or GT350 manifold; constrained to aluminum, $799 retail price.
Having tried countless combinations of runner lengths, cross-sections, runner entries, plenum shapes, inlet ducts...the only designs that reached the performance goal, failed the aesthetic constraints in one way or another.
Add to that, the aluminum manifold weighed multiples of what the OEM manifold does. The 2018 Mustang manifold was $400 retail at the time.

I tried to develop a dual length runner manifold like the late model Chrysler Hemis have, even with examples to reference, CFD tools, it would probably take 50-100 prototypes to duplicate the performance in a different engine. Then the cost of manufacture requires about $1 million in tooling to make. No company in the performance aftermarket would remotely consider doing that when they have 30 year old CNCs.

[ptuomov]

New turbos, new hardware upstream of those new turbos, new hardware downstream of those new turbos, and new software to run the new turbos all seem like relevant products for the aftermarket. No?

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

New turbos, new hardware upstream of those new turbos, new hardware downstream of those new turbos, and new software to run the new turbos all seem like relevant products for the aftermarket. No?

Emissions certification is an expensive must do unless you want to lose everything and more.
Multiple organizations tasked with stifling those products.
If you have the skills to reprogram, there is much more lucrative work in other fields to do without risk of jail time.

[David Redszus]

For quite some time, automotive development has been categorized as incremental rather than innovative.

Products developed for sale to the mass market, must be incremental since the risk of marketplace failure is not acceptable.
Innovation is present but limited to research and development projects not intended for immediate production.

Why you ask?
At the consumer level, product liability and regulatory restrictions place large road blocks in the way.
Unless, mandated by government fiat; often in a silly and frivolous manner.

With regard to motorsports, it becomes just as bad. Sanctioning bodies insist on well intended but bad rules, that
restrict and limit innovation. They think their mission is to level the playing field instead of to encourage new
ideas and innovation. Look what we have: bracket racing, spec series, banned technology, spec fuels, etc, etc.

But perhaps an even higher mountain to climb is that most competitors do not understand, much less use the
technology already available. We insist on racing antique engines, obsolete suspensions, obsolete fueling systems,
and a whole lot more.

In the final analysis, racing is all about entertainment.
At the professional level we seek to entertain the fans, who want more crashes and flaming rollovers.
And big name stars who could be beaten by mere youngsters give similar equipment.

At the amateur level, racers only entertain themselves. Why else spend $X0,000, in hot pursuit of a $25 trophy?

If you need a better technical understanding, go ask your shop teacher.

[nitro2]

Very difficult to break into the OEM market as there are so many obstacles in place no matter how good your innovation is.

As for racing, some people will spend all they possibly can to be #1, sometimes the money is well placed and sometimes not, but at least they are willing to do whatever it takes. Others are content to run in the top 5 or 10 for their whole lives and spend as little as they can and never break out of that.

I know we all like to complain about cubic dollars, but those that are spending the cubic dollars, or at least spending and doing whatever they can to be #1, they are actually the ones that are doing something (directly or indirectly) that resembles innovation, they move things forward, and they force others to keep up whether they like it or not.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

The other issue here is the younger generation that think Computer Models are the answer to building the perfect engine but don't actually test their results to correlate one vs the other.

If you are competing with a design that was well developed with computer models, your chance of improving it without computer models is slim and expensive.

[David Redszus]

The other issue here is the younger generation that think Computer Models are the answer to building the perfect engine but don't actually test their results to correlate one vs the other.

If you are competing with a design that was well developed with computer models, your chance of improving it without computer models is slim and expensive.

Very true.
Engine simulation computer models are not always used just to improve performance.
They can be excellent tutorials that help explain technical details and engineering principles.

[nitro2]

This might not qualify as radical or groundbreaking, but perhaps it might be interesting to some.

We have begun the engineering design process for a Porsche road race car; engine, suspension, custom ABS brakes,
aero, tires, gearing, and data logging.

The purpose is to optimize each performance area before construction, and then validate each aspect
with actual recorded data.

As such the data system is a bit overwhelming. Currently we plan over 150 data channels for the engine alone.
The aero, suspension, brake and tire sensors are another large mass of sensors.

And then, there is the data necessary to train the driver what to do to win every race.

While I cannot share specific information that the customer has paid a large fortune to obtain, I might be
able to discuss the type of information being collected and analyzed.

For example, the tires will have 16 infra-red temperature sensors reading across each tire, real time pressure
transmitters, and tire spring rate sensors. Vehicle aero data will use 24 pressure sensors, strategically
placed about the car. There are vibration sensors for suspension, drive line and engine.

We are having some difficulty asking the driver to accept a "pucker factor" sensor; perhaps that is because it
currently is only available in suppository form.

How much computer control is allowed, obviously ABS and injection etc. but beyond that what parameters ?

[David Redszus]

This might not qualify as radical or groundbreaking, but perhaps it might be interesting to some.

We have begun the engineering design process for a Porsche road race car; engine, suspension, custom ABS brakes,
aero, tires, gearing, and data logging.

The purpose is to optimize each performance area before construction, and then validate each aspect
with actual recorded data.

As such the data system is a bit overwhelming. Currently we plan over 150 data channels for the engine alone.
The aero, suspension, brake and tire sensors are another large mass of sensors.

And then, there is the data necessary to train the driver what to do to win every race.

While I cannot share specific information that the customer has paid a large fortune to obtain, I might be
able to discuss the type of information being collected and analyzed.

For example, the tires will have 16 infra-red temperature sensors reading across each tire, real time pressure
transmitters, and tire spring rate sensors. Vehicle aero data will use 24 pressure sensors, strategically
placed about the car. There are vibration sensors for suspension, drive line and engine.

We are having some difficulty asking the driver to accept a "pucker factor" sensor; perhaps that is because it
currently is only available in suppository form.

How much computer control is allowed, obviously ABS and injection etc. but beyond that what parameters ?

It's a run whatcha brung class.
Any computer control is permitted. Besides how would tech even know?

[nitro2]

So how much nitro are you keeping onboard ? lol

[NewbVetteGuy]

I guess I'm easily impressed.
I see lots of small yet ground-breaking technologies showing up.


Direct Injection is impressive, IMHO.
Today's turbo diesel engines producing as much torque as they do and running steel monster pistons.

Heck, I feel like whoever thought to package a tiny liquid to air intercooler in an intake like in the LSA super charged engines, or the BMW M4 GTS using recycled AC condensation for water injection to boost output by 50 hp, or the Dodge Demon using the AC system to force chill the intake air temp -were all genius level heat management hacks!


Plasma Jet Ignition and Transient Plasma is impressive (at least in driving efficiency and DRAMATICALLY reducing emissions): https://tpsignition.com/#ignition-solution

The opposed piston engine from Achates https://achatespower.com/

Even though it's in a narrow RPM and load range, I think Mazda's HCCI-capable SkyActiv engine is an impressive achievement; how many people thought HCCI was an impossibility in a production vehicle?

Toyota's Dynamic Force Engine is 40% Thermally Efficient (impressive): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLxxZm_LRQ

Koenigsegg's TFG 2.0 liter 3 cylinder engine making 600 hp and 443 ft lbs, passing German emissions, and weighing nothing; impressive!

"Entry Ignition" engines... confusing engineering nerd vaporware? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiUnqlGzLw8&t=532s



Adam

[NewbVetteGuy]

So many of the Engine Masters' builds, but the electronically controlled dynamic length IR stack intake has to just make you laugh with the lengths (pun intended?) that they went to exploit the rules.

https://hotrodenginetech.com/hardcore-h ... challenge/

That one cracks me up EVERY time I think about it!

I wish they would've gone with a 4:1 merge collector and electronically controlled secondary pipe lengths, too but I understand the off-the-shelf header rule.


Adam