[HN Gopher] Internal Combustion Engine ___________________________________________________________________ Internal Combustion Engine Author : algui91 Score : 519 points Date : 2021-04-30 09:15 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (ciechanow.ski) (TXT) w3m dump (ciechanow.ski) | engineer_22 wrote: | What a great website, awesome animations, and intuitive | interactives | larsnystrom wrote: | In a few decades the internal combustion engine will be to | transportation what the typewriter is to typing today. It's kind | of mind boggling, but there is really no alternative if we want | to stop increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere. | kirse wrote: | Pure EVs will reach a fundamental peak percentage similar to | any other car class... Hybrid powertrains are really where the | next 20-30 years are headed for the bulk of vehicles. | Automotive racing and supercars have demonstrated hybrids are | the most effective setup for the past decade, and barring some | major breakthrough in battery tech that will all trickle down | into consumer cars over the next 0-20 years. | londons_explore wrote: | As soon as governments get serious about CO2 emissions, | Hybrid powertrains will end up as a "worst of both worlds" | position. | | Already across most of Europe all subsidies and discounts | that applied for "eco friendly cars" no longer apply to | Hybrids. | | That leaves few people wanting to buy a hybrid - it won't be | cheapest _or_ most eco friendly. | tmh88j wrote: | Not sure I agree with that. I don't think you realize how | many cars have switched over to hybrid powertrains, but are | not advertised as a main selling point like the Prius or | Volt. Volvo's entire lineup is now hybrid or electric along | with their new performance brand Polestar. Mercedes is | switching over to hybrid powertrains even on their AMG | models. Audi's using hybrid powertrains even on their | highest performance models like the RS6 and their ultra | luxury vehicles like the A8. Hybrid technology is great for | sports cars and offers many advantages over fully electric, | most importantly being the weight savings. | snazz wrote: | It definitely feels like you get some free low end torque | in a hybrid as well. | jandrese wrote: | I think the thinking on hybrids will shift from "smaller | gas engine with an electric boost to help with merging on | the highway" to "range extension option for the electric | car." They'll be configured to not even fire up the gas | engine until the battery pack is run down enough. | Viker wrote: | Hmm... Hard to beat that energy density when the workload is | large. | | Trucks, tractors, planes, ships. Sure consumer cars will be EV | but ICEs are not going anywhere | whatever1 wrote: | People have hard time grasping how much energy chemical bonds | can hold. 15 gallons of gasoline store 500kWh of energy. That | is 5 tesla model s worth of energy. | | Efficiency plays role for our day to day car tasks, but when | you have to deal with external forces or higher requirements | of momentum, then you need more energy period. Towing, | beating high-speed drag / waves, climbing high, cannot be | addressed with smarter design. You need to be able to store | somehow enough energy to deal with these external forces / | additional required momentum | outworlder wrote: | > 15 gallons of gasoline store 500kWh of energy. That is 5 | tesla model s worth of energy. | | Yes. However, the Carnot efficiency means that most of it | is lost as heat. Suddenly the advantage is not that large | anymore. | whatever1 wrote: | Not even close. An electric motor is 4 times more | efficient than ice. An ice car can easily store 10 times | more energy than an electric. | | F150 can tow 13,000 pounds and has a 27 gallon tank | (almost 10 Tesla's). | dahfizz wrote: | This sparked my curiosity... | | Currently gasoline has about 50x more energy per unit weight | than a tesla battery pack. | | Battery energy densities have tripled in the past 10 years. | Keeping on that pace, it would take over 30 years for | batteries to be competitive with gas. | | When you account for the astoundingly bad efficiency of ICE, | though, the gap in usable energy decreases. This is why a | tesla can go 300+ miles with a battery that can only store | the same energy as 2.4 gallons of gas. | rsj_hn wrote: | The Tesla can go 300 miles by making it light, aerodynamic, | brakes that recharge the battery, not turning on the | heater, etc. Yes, it's a significant engineering | accomplishment, but in the heavy long haul world when | analyzing break-even points what matters is range | improvements due to an increasing energy/weight ratio, not | range improvements due to reducing air resistance and | inertia. This is because the form factors of the boxcar are | basically set by shipping container needs and the weight is | going to be determined by the load you are carrying. Munro | is advocating for hydrogen powered trucks and planes as | hydrogen has similar power/weight characteristics to gas -- | electrification of these is going to be a challenge. | outworlder wrote: | > by making it light | | If there's one thing that EVs are not, is "light". Model | S ranges from 4,561 to 4,941 lbs. A model 3, 3,648 to | 4,250 lbs. A Nissan Leaf - 3,538 to 3,946 lbs. | | In comparison, a Honda Civic weights 2,771 to 3,012 lbs. | | Regenerative breaking is nice but it's very dependent on | the particular drive and terrain. Heaters are power | hungry as there is very little waste heat that can be | used (again, due to the high efficiency), unless they are | heat pumps. | | The main reason they can go so far with so little energy | is the efficiency of electric motors. | | > as hydrogen has similar power/weight characteristics to | gas | | No it doesn't! It has horrible energy density per volume, | compared to any gas or liquid fuels. You can improve this | by using high pressures (energy loss) or cryogenics (even | more energy loss). But it's pretty bad to begin with. | Turns out that the best way to store hydrogen is by | adding some carbon atoms to it. | rsj_hn wrote: | > If there's one thing that EVs are not, is "light". | _sigh_ | | Obviously we are not comparing about the weight of an EV | compared to an apple or vehicle that doesn't require a | battery. We are talking about extreme measures taken to | make the car lighter so it can improve range. Replacing | cheaper steel with more expensive aluminum, reducing even | surface area of plastics, reducing wires. Truly amazing | steps were taken to reduce weight. | | > No it doesn't! It has horrible energy density per | volume, | | volume? Seriously? "The energy in 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) | of hydrogen gas is about the same as the energy in 1 | gallon (6.2 pounds, 2.8 kilograms) of gasoline." | https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_basics.html | legulere wrote: | Don't forget to talk about rockets! Although there weight is | more important than volume. | jabl wrote: | Volume matters too, especially for lower stages. There's a | reason for the lack of success of hydrolox 1st stages. | rhinoceraptor wrote: | I wouldn't be so sure, I think there's a decent chance that | e-fuel can be made economically viable. | peter303 wrote: | Hydrogen works fine in ICEs with modest modifications. | | Hydrogen can be created with nearly any energy source: | renewable, natural gas, etc. | | There is a large infrastructure for moving fuels. | endisneigh wrote: | How were these animations made? They're excellent! | bob1029 wrote: | view-source:https://ciechanow.ski/js/ice.js | | I find this to be a very impressive implementation. | wyuenho wrote: | I wonder if it's completely written by hand from scratch or | done with something like emscripten. | fuzzybear3965 wrote: | He said on Twitter that he hand-wrote the animation code. | fuzzybear3965 wrote: | He posted a bit of information on his Twitter: | | https://twitter.com/BCiechanowski/status/1387827101294686210... | louwrentius wrote: | This is very nicely done, I love it. | senbarryobama wrote: | Who did the 3D graphics for this post? | | EDIT: | https://twitter.com/BCiechanowski/status/1387827101294686210 | csours wrote: | If the author is reading this: A great addition would be common | breakdown reasons, perhaps on another page. | | Something I didn't really think about until recently: solid metal | bearings are used on the crank and piston journals as they can | handle more force than ball or roller bearings. In other areas, | ball and roller bearings are used to minimize energy loss. | [deleted] | incomplete wrote: | as someone who as a hobby occasionally builds engines (for the 24 | hours of lemons), i was really impressed at how incredibly | accurate and detailed this whole page is. | | i'm down w/TDC... | mgarfias wrote: | I wasn't. But then I've literally been working on engines since | i was a little kid. | mgarfias wrote: | ok, and? | userbinator wrote: | Those who are curious about the oval piston skirts may find this | interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15397926 | RaiausderDose wrote: | brillant explanation. I always wanted to know how an engine | really works. | yashksagar wrote: | great find - i love the one on Cameras and Lenses too, great use | of interactivity for pedagogy | noveltyaccount wrote: | This is incredible. I remember the Gears example from the same | site, but now with 3D renderings. Great work. | nzealand wrote: | Haynes sells an excellent Build Your Own Internal Combustion | Engine model, which teaches children about all of these concepts. | fernly wrote: | Can't remember where I first learned this, twas years ago -- | unforgettable names for the four engine strokes: | Suck, Squeeze, Pop, Phooey | josefresco wrote: | If you like these kind of animations, I found this website a | while ago: https://jacoboneal.com | | *Graphic designer & 3D artist. Creator of animagraffs.com | zmanji wrote: | aaaaaa | phpdave11 wrote: | This was really educational! I love the design of the webpage, | and I especially like how you can rotate the 3d diagrams and see | each component from every angle. | randlet wrote: | If anyone is looking for a hands on educational model, my 6 | year old and I put together a model V8 engine [1] (made by | Haynes of technical manual fame I think) that does a pretty | reasonable job of capturing the essence of the main parts of an | internal combustion engine. It kept him (and me) thoroughly | engrossed for a few hours. | | [1] https://www.themotorbookstore.com/build-your- | own-v8-engine-m... | Syonyk wrote: | I had _no idea_ until I read your comment that you could click | and drag the engine models! Insane! | sillysaurusx wrote: | Ditto. Thanks. | jiofih wrote: | The text immediately before the first image says "You can | drag it around to see it from other angles". Our attention | spans are deteriorating quickly... | [deleted] | specialp wrote: | I just built an engine for my car. One thing I gained an | appreciation for was how CHEAP cars and engines are. There's | probably nothing else with as precise machining that is as | inexpensive. | | Engine cylinders are honed to accuracies that are less than 1 | thousandth of an inch. Crank journals as well and rod journals. | This is all precise machine work with metal. I use inches here | because in machine work thousandths of inches is the language du | jour. Transmissions are similar works of very precise and clean | machine work. | | The distance between a crank bearing or rod bearing is less than | 2 thousandths on modern engines. A small amount of oil in that | tiny space is all that keeps your engine from having metal on | metal seizure. | | So one would think that when EVs reach the same scale they will | be significantly cheaper than ICE vehicles. | mfer wrote: | If people were willing to pay the higher cost for the same | feature set, why would they well them for cheaper? Why not | pocket the extra profit? | | I don't like this line of thinking but I'm sure it's going to | or already is happening. | clairity wrote: | competition, a bedrock element of fair markets, capitalism, | and efficient economic allocation, something we seem to have | collectively lost sight of. | admax88q wrote: | ... | | Because the whole nature of market competition? People will | still choose the cheaper option if its available. | ianai wrote: | I'm starting to think it may just be minimizing cost. | Theoretically that just means "maximize profit", but I | suspect in practice it means a whole slew of bad behavior | and design choices. I.e. Pay for the part that's .0001 cent | cheaper than another option, despite the cheaper part | possibly being a fire hazard. | swiley wrote: | I've always felt cars were like computers; most people (me | included) pay a premium for something mediocre because they | don't want to bother understanding it. | | My personal solution is to live near the metro and bike as much | as possible. | jacobsenscott wrote: | Mediocre in what way? Buy almost any new car from a well | known brand today and it will run for 200,000+ miles. You | almost need to deliberately buy a mediocre car. Biking and | taking the metro is better for the environment, your health, | and your budget though. If you are fortunate enough to have | that option. | pram wrote: | I think automatic transmissions are more impressive looking | than engines when they're open. They resemble EV motors too! | Ambroos wrote: | VW group has a dual-clutch automatic transmission that | includes an EV motor for their plug-in hybrids, the DQ400E. | It looks pretty cool indeed! | benlivengood wrote: | Automatic transmissions also have hydraulic logic gates in | the valve body (implemented with check-balls and piston | servos), even if they're also electronically controlled. | Drag-racers will reprogram the valve body to change the shift | order, have launch control, etc. | elihu wrote: | The raw materials may continue to cost more for EVs. Motor | windings are generally copper, and batteries contain lithium | and (usually) cobalt and nickel. Permanent magnet motors | sometimes contain rare earths. | | One could make an EV with aluminum motor windings and | electrical cabling, no rare earth magnets, and lithium iron | phosphate batteries. That would keep expensive materials to a | minimum. | | EVs don't need a catalytic converter, so that's a big thing in | their favor. | | I'm looking forward to mass manufacturing continuing to bring | down EV component prices. I think we're a long ways from the | point where material costs are the bulk of the expense. | Robotbeat wrote: | Tesla already uses aluminum for power cabling because it's | cheap and lighter weight. Tesla Model S were induction motors | (at first at least) with no rare earths, and Tesla is | partnering with CATL for lithium _iron phosphate_ batteries | in lower cost versions of, if I believe, Model 3 and Y. | esaym wrote: | Note to replace copper wiring with aluminum, you have to go | up at least one gauge size. | elihu wrote: | Yeah, aluminum is a worse conductor so you need thicker | cable. It's less dense, though, so I think it usually | comes out as being lighter. Thicker cables can be more | inconvenient. I think aluminum also tends to have more | problems with oxidation causing too much resistance at | electrical contacts. | | I think for motors generally you just end up with a | larger motor for the same amount of power. | Bubbadoo wrote: | All points you make are very true. In addition, aluminum | tends to crack as it ages and you'll find aluminum wiring | is usually a culprit in electrical fires. In the world of | mobile electronics, it's usually looked down upon as the | cheapest alternative when compared to real copper | conductor used in higher quality automotive wiring. | CamperBob2 wrote: | Or raise the voltage at the same time you change from Cu | to Al. | elihu wrote: | I thought CATL makes lithium iron phosphate batteries, and | lithium sulfur hasn't been commercialized yet. Unless | there's some news on that front I missed? | | I think induction motors tend to be less efficient than | permanent magnet motors (and thus require more cooling). | The Netgain Hyper9 (a popular motor for conversions) is a | permanent magnet motor which doesn't use rare earths. It's | very efficient but not particularly powerful (though that | may be due more to the relatively low voltage it runs at). | | That's cool that Tesla is using aluminum for power cables. | Makes sense to save cost and weight where you can. | Robotbeat wrote: | Yes, I meant iron phosphate. (I've had sulfur on my mind | from Bye Aerospace's 925km range 8-seat electric | aircraft, working with Oxis Energy.) | esaym wrote: | > EVs don't need a catalytic converter, so that's a big thing | in their favor. | | I feel there is some sort of scam going on with catalytic | converters for the last few years. I actually worked in a | small family owned auto shop in the early 2000's. If a car | came in with a clogged cat, we'd first fix the source of the | issue (usually a mis-firing cylinder allowing raw fuel into | the exhaust) and then we'd cut out the cat, and weld in a | universal fit one that we'd get from the auto store for $20. | Then charge the customer $200-$400 for labor. I still see | universal fit ones[0] although they are $80 now. But still, | if you aren't dumping raw fuel or oil into your exhaust, cats | are basically good for 300k+ "normal" driving miles. I assume | they are expensive now because they are all mostly specially | made/custom fit since all car manufactures keep cramming | bigger and bigger engines into smaller and smaller spaces. | | And while I'm ranting, there's always a negative for every | positive and no doubt for the catalytic converter. For a | catalytic converter to convert "greenhouse gases", the engine | has to be burning fuel at a perfect air:fuel ratio of 14.7:1. | While cruising down the highway, an engine could easily save | fuel by running a more lean mixture, but this would cause | more "greenhouse gases" to go out. So choose your poison I | suppose. | | [0] https://imgur.com/a/7X0sPlk | buran77 wrote: | On the other hand the quality and performance of those $80 | catalytic converters are questionable at best. They have | neither the longevity, nor the performance of the original | part. They might last even 10 times less, and they're | usually just barely good enough to pass the emissions | tests, which is already the lowest bar to pass given how | all manufacturers optimize for that. Real life emissions | are far worse. | | And the purpose of the catalytic converter is to make sure | the CO, NOx, and unburned fuel are _rapidly_ oxidized to | CO2, N, and water before leaving the exhaust system. The | outcome is that you will produce more greenhouse gases but | fewer compounds that are more immediately dangerous to | people, especially in cities. So it reduces localized | pollution at the price of more CO2. | scythe wrote: | Catalytic converters don't reduce greenhouse gases. Their | function is to reduce _poisonous_ gases: NO, NO2, O3, CO, | HO2, and sometimes HCN and H2CO. The good news is that all | of these compounds are thermodynamically unstable so a | catalyst can destroy them. | | I don't know where you got the 14.7:1 number but I am | certain that NOx are unstable at any concentration (at or | near STP) and will always be depleted by a catalyst. | | Another commenter is unsure whether the NOx or some GHGs | should be reduced preferentially. To clarify: CO2 can't be | removed, it is stable; only CH4, N2O and O3 can be removed, | and they are not present at relevant levels (except ozone | which is poisonous) anyway. The poisonous gases are far | more important -- NOx pollution alone kills thousands of | people every year (statistically, considering excess deaths | as correlated to air pollution). | | The increased price of catalytic converters is partially | related to the supply of palladium, which experienced a | glut following the collapse of the USSR. The Soviet | palladium ran out in 2012: | | https://www.mining.com/russias-stockpiles-said-to-be- | deplete... | golemiprague wrote: | The reason is the increasing price of Palladium which is | used by catalytic converters and your dentist. That's why | there is huge increase in theft of those converters as the | material is scraped and sold in the black market. | elihu wrote: | I don't think cats are to address greenhouse gasses; | they're focused more on reducing pollutants that affect | local air quality and human health. | | The main greenhouse gas from a car is carbon dioxide. The | amount you create is directly proportional to the amount of | fuel you burn. | | I don't know why modern cats are expensive; it might have | to do with the price of platinum, palladium, and so on, and | the relative amount of those materials. A cheap generic cat | might have the bare minimum amount of catalyst, and might | not do a very good job. | czinck wrote: | > I don't think cats are to address greenhouse gasses; | they're focused more on reducing pollutants that affect | local air quality and human health. | | I thought the same thing, but interestingly that's only | kinda true. If anything, cats increase CO_2 as a desired | end goal, because it's better to have CO_2 than CO or | NO_x (or so the EPA has decided, I am no where near | qualified to decide that). The issue with running too | lean is that the reactions in the cat would rather use | plain O_2 than NO_x, and so if you have too much O_2 | (lean) you won't get rid of any of the NO_x [0]. Before | looking into this I thought lean engines produced more | NO_x because of higher cylinder temps or something like | that (which might be true as well). | | Cats not reducing NO_x when lean is essentially why | Volkswagen (and practically every other manufacturer has | been caught doing similar things to diesel engines) was | cheating the test. Diesels have no throttle so they are | (almost) always lean, typically very lean. | | This does make me wonder, though, does running lean | actually increase fuel efficiency? Obviously rich lowers | fuel economy because not all the fuel burns, but assuming | it all burns what does it matter if you have 1 gram of | fuel to 15 grams of air in the cylinder, or 1 gram of | fuel to 18 grams of air in the cylinder? You'll still get | the same amount of energy, right? | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#Three- | way | Alupis wrote: | > A cheap generic cat might have the bare minimum amount | of catalyst, and might not do a very good job | | It depends on the car/engine. My old Mazda RX-8 had a | _huge_ cat - longer than the muffler and cost me $2,000 | to replace (including labor) back in the late 2000 's. | | The rotary engine in that vehicle had a terribly | difficult time passing California's emission laws even | when it was brand new off the lot - which led to strange | "hacks" including a blower motor that moved high volumes | of air through the exhaust to heat the cat sooner and | somehow improve it's numbers, among other things. I | assume the extra-long cat was part of the shenanigans | Mazda had to go through to get it compliant. | elihu wrote: | It's funny you mention the RX-8, since I'm in the (slow) | process of converting one to electric. That weird cat | blower was one of the many parts I removed while thinking | "I'm glad I don't have to understand or care about why | this car needed something like that in the first place". | the_cat_kittles wrote: | cmon man. the total weight of pricey metals in a car is so | low, there is no way its going to offset the cost of | precision machining. tolerances < 1 thou and callouts for | surface finish and perpendicularity are expensive! | jeffreyrogers wrote: | I'm sure a motor is cheaper than an engine (less steps to | make), but they still require precision manufacturing, and | all the other parts aside from the motor (driveshaft, | axles, brakes, etc.) are more or less the same. | | Plus, the cost of those other materials is going to | increase if demand for EVs goes up. | elihu wrote: | Somehow car manufacturers are able to make engines, | transmissions, transaxles, and differentials really | cheaply, so apparently all that precision manufacturing | doesn't really cost all that much when producing at high | volume. This should be equally true of EVs and combustion- | engine cars. | | Raw material costs might still be less than the | manufacturing costs, but they're pretty hard to avoid. | Also, materials that are cheap now might not be if demand | grows faster than supply. | jbay808 wrote: | Hard to say. Those tolerances would be expensive in general | purpose machine work, but in engines those tolerances have | been in place since at least the 1930s, and so economies of | scale bring those costs down (ie, using specialized | machines that are _really good_ at boring precision holes | and measuring them. The costs of those machines get | amortized over every engine). | kokanator wrote: | Anyone who has the inclination to build an engine, should. | | It is super rewarding not to mention you get to buy a bunch of | really cool tools. | | I build a 350 Windsor from the block. The research and design | decisions were one of the best parts of the project. Then to | put it all together and realize the power was amazing. | formerly_proven wrote: | > I use inches here because in machine work thousandths of | inches is the language du jour. | | Only in the USA ;) | alexvoda wrote: | The rest of the world figured that using prefixes with a | predefined universal multiplier is more practical. | | Therefore you can use the milifoot equal to a thousandth of a | foot, or the kiloinch equal to one thousand inches, or the | microyard equal to one millionth of a yard, maybe even the | centifurlong equal to one hundredth of a furlong. | | We are quiet proud of our prefixes. Now if only we would | decide on a single reference unit to which to apply the | prefixes. Conversion from megainch to hectofurlong is rather | inconvenient. | ryandrake wrote: | Not only the tight measurements, but I've always been amazed at | the precise timing of all the little moving parts, the valves | all opening and closing at precise to-the-millisecond times so | that each stroke happens, at 6000 RPM! So impressive. | Especially with an interference engine, where getting that | timing wrong means bent valves. | globular-toast wrote: | Mmm.. not really. It's just a cam and a spring. Pretty easy | to get that bit working by yourself. Variable valve timing | and lift is much more impressive. | slver wrote: | How about your phone. | kccqzy wrote: | > One thing I gained an appreciation for was how CHEAP cars and | engines are. There's probably nothing else with as precise | machining that is as inexpensive. | | Not to denigrate the amount of engineering that went into car | engines, but literally, what about chips? Devices that contain | billions of transistors, arranged precisely on the order of | nanometers. Yet they cost only hundreds of dollars. | akiselev wrote: | They're apples and oranges. Chips are not machined, they're | etched in batches. Their "tolerances", so to speak, are | limited by the wavelengths of visible or UV light they use | for creating the masks and exposing the photoresist that | protects the wafer from hydrofluoric acid and other etchants. | There's no mechanical force involved, except to spin wafers | to apply coatings and move them between each stage of the | process. | | Engine blocks, on the other hand, are CNC machined one at a | time and the force of machining steel causes vibrations that | move the cutting tools thousands of nanometers back and | forth. Placing both in the same building, for example, would | likely cripple the semiconductor fab. Having a machine shop | in China make a one off would likely cost as much as a luxury | car. | specialp wrote: | Yes you are referring to another insanely complex thing that | is very cheap relative to making one of cost due to mass | production. But it isn't machined metal :) I didn't say I | don't appreciate electronics too. | Animats wrote: | _I just built an engine for my car. One thing I gained an | appreciation for was how CHEAP cars and engines are. There 's | probably nothing else with as precise machining that is as | inexpensive._ | | When cars started getting electronic engine controls, there was | much internal grumbling about the cost. One Ford production | guy, on hearing that the engine controller cost about $100, | said "I can make the whole engine for 100 bucks." | kingsuper20 wrote: | >So one would think that when EVs reach the same scale they | will be significantly cheaper than ICE vehicles. | | I expect that batteries are the only hangup, there's probably | not that much magic left in an electric motor. Additional cost | for regen brakes of course. | | I agree on the amazing cheapness of it all if you stick with | the common stuff. That, along with the low cost of flat panel | TVs is a miracle of the modern age. | londons_explore wrote: | > Additional cost for regen brakes of course. | | Regen braking has no physical cost associated - it's pure | software/firmware. The _exact_ same hardware that is used to | power the car forwards can be used for regen braking. It can | be as simple as a single negative sign in the code to cause | the phase to be 180 degrees out, current to flow backwards, | torque to go the other way, and the battery to be charged | instead of discharged. | | One day regen braking will take over hydraulic brakes, and | another big cost/complexity of a car will be eliminated. The | only reason that doesn't happen today is there are lots of | laws and regulations requiring hydraulic brakes, and braking | systems typically require more redundancy than power systems. | distortedsignal wrote: | > Regen braking has no physical cost associated - it's pure | software/firmware. | | I think this is a slight exaggeration. | | The way I understand regenerative braking is that you | (effectively) run your AC generator in reverse of what you | would in order to accelerate in the direction of motion and | then take the current generated by that, rectify it to DC, | and use that current to charge a battery. The energy in the | system is provided by the back EMF induced in the stator by | the magnetic field generated by the motor rotor. I agree | that the AC generator is going to stay the same, but I | think there's specialized hardware needed for the | rectification and charging cycles. At the minimum, you need | a more specialized battery and battery management system to | make sure that you're balancing the charge across the cells | in your battery. | labawi wrote: | I think you are overestimating unique requirements of | typical car engines. They are usually DC powered AC | engines, where the DC->AC converter (generating 3-phase | AC of controlled power and frequency) can probably run | backwards (AC->DC) with at most a few minimal hardware | changes, if any. | | If you're not overdoing regen, you probably don't need | additional balancing. Even if you wanted to charge the EV | by towing, you could probably use the normal charge | balancing circuitry, again minimal if any HW changes. | Non-wimpy batteries and cells should be fine - if they | can fast-charge, they can take regen. Might have some | limitations on acceptable power vs. temperature, charge | state etc. | [deleted] | kingsuper20 wrote: | Is that right? I didn't know that. I'd like to see a BOM on | a regen braking as compared to a simple disk brake system. | | One implication to software-only brakes is that it requires | that that corner is a drive wheel. If that's the case, I | suppose that anti-lock is simply firmware and a sensor. | | note: I do see that Teslas have master cylinders, so they | apparently are hydraulic braking systems. | dahfizz wrote: | A bill of materials? As OP said, there is _literally_ | nothing required aside from what is required to make the | car go forward. An electric motor is a generator. | | Teslas have traditional braking systems in addition to | the regen braking. The hydraulic brakes have nothing to | do with the regen system. | kingsuper20 wrote: | I appreciate that now. Thank you to everyone for the | education. | | >The hydraulic brakes have nothing to do with the regen | system. | | I strongly suspect that they interact for antilock. | | I wonder how Teslas deal with parking brakes, | historically kind of an issue with disks. | | It does seem to me that an entirely regenerative braking | system would imply additional expense in terms of the | strength of the half shafts, u-joints, transmission if | any. | specialp wrote: | Parking brakes for disc brakes are usually in the center | of the disc rotor (like a mini drum) with shoes. Some | others like Chryslers have implemented hybrid brake | cylinders | mfer wrote: | > I expect that batteries are the only hangup, | | Batteries are a huge hangup. For example, we don't know how | to recycle them and they aren't good for dumps. And, used car | batteries are expensive to replace and you get a lot fewer | miles per charge out of older cars. Manufacturing of cars | isn't great for the environment so we should want older cars | to last. This model helps push people to more new cars | faster. | kingsuper20 wrote: | No problemo. Just go to a big honkin' flywheel somewhere | under the back seat. | stjohnswarts wrote: | there have been flywheel (only) powered vehicles made. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | > the low cost of flat panel TVs is a miracle | | That's really astounding, I just looked at a 55 inch brand | name 4k TV going for 400 bucks retail. | | Guess it's the same logic as cramming more CPU, etc. into the | usual couple hundred sq. mm chip. But you get more CPU for | the same money and chip size, which is not as spectacular as | more screen size for less money ... | [deleted] | piva00 wrote: | > there's probably not that much magic left in an electric | motor. | | I believe this sentence has been said about many technologies | in the past that definitely invalidated it. I'm more playing | devil's advocate than trying to falsify you, likely for being | burned sometimes reading or, worse, stating it, haha. | londons_explore wrote: | There isn't much more _efficiency_ to be gained in the | electric motor world. Motors typically get 90% of | theoretical efficiency, so any improvements there will be | modest. | | Substantial improvements in other metrics might be had, but | they probably won't massively impact EV's (weight and costs | of the motor are both a small part of the total for a car) | gtvwill wrote: | > "I use inches here because in machine work thousandths of | inches is the language du jour." | | Yeah not in Australia unless your machinist is >50 years old. | Metric is more accurate/easier/less prone to mistakes. Metric | is what we use. | specialp wrote: | I'm not denying the metric system. Just in the USA it is thou | period. and if the measurement is a consistent unit of | whatever it works. Also GM (and Holden in oz) are inch based. | So using metric will subject you to mistakes possibly. I | agree though in science SI is the way to go | gtvwill wrote: | Yeah I cut my teeth on Subaru engines (helped having a gf | who was a subi then telsa mechanic walking me through it). | Subi are all metric tho. My workshop is a mix of metric for | new gear and imperial from my old mans days running a farm. | | We even have some stuff thats neither metric or US | imperial, but is british witworth imperial...so different | again and just enough to make a difference. Makes for some | confusing repairs when your working with stuff that's had a | mix of all 3 systems due to a long life of repairs. | s5300 wrote: | Still widely used and taught in the machine shops of highly | reputable universities over here in the U.S. | | If you're under 40 and can't use metric and imperial jargon | without a second thought in the shop here that's a different | problem. I _personally_ enjoy doing machine shop-esque metal | fabrication in metric and woodshop type things in imperial, | but all machine shop instructors I 've met through several | good stem uni's that look even slightly middle aged love to | talk in thou of inch, some to the point of getting quite | physically frustrated when asked where the metric drill | index/reamer set are in otherwise highly stocked shops... | | Also, I've noticed and heard the same from others in | surrounding states - Fluid Dynamics professors love to | include absolutely unecessary boatloads of strange units and | conversions in coursework/exams to apparently "prepare us for | the shitshow that is industry" | tmh88j wrote: | Nice! What engine did you build? | | >The distance between a crank bearing or rod bearing is less | than 2 thousandths on modern engines. A small amount of oil in | that tiny space is all that keeps your engine from having metal | on metal seizure. | | The BMW S65 and S85 engines are prime examples of what happens | when the wrong tolerances are chosen. I can't think of another | engine family where rod bearings are considered a maintenance | item. | specialp wrote: | I built an LSX (Aftermarket GM) iron block engine (V8 LS) for | a CTS V. I had to get some very precise tools (Have to | measure to 10,000ths) or they were useless for bearing | clearances and verifying cylinder diameters. My cylinders | were 4.155 bore, and the bearing clearances were around 1.8 | thousandths. Forged pistons, rods and crank. | | I had cracked a cylinder/piston on the original LSA. I did | not trust anyone to do the work so I did a lot of research | and did it all myself. I appreciate someone asking because my | friends and software dev co workers aren't interested :) | kingsuper20 wrote: | Very cool. Although I own an LS, I've never touched an LS. | The Sloppy Mechanics guy is impressive though. | | Since a short block is mostly just a short block, I'll be | interested in seeing if LS heads/intake manifold/headers | takes off in the SBC community. | mgarfias wrote: | Huh? What do you mean "takes off". Do you mean do we | build LS motors now instead of gen1/2 SBCs then yes. | | If you mean "do the LSx heads drop onto a gen1/2 SBC", | then no, not at all. only thing common between them is | the cylinder spacing. The LS uses 4 bolts per cylinder | like a ford, instead of 5 like the SBC, the firing order | is different, the valve layout is different (ports are | symmetric vs mirrored), etc. | kingsuper20 wrote: | Firing order is something of an arbitrary thing, it's | been done on SBC for some time. | | There are small block Chevrolet blocks that accept LS | heads (Bill Mitchell maybe?) | | (note: I wasn't referring to box-stock LS heads on a box- | stock SBC) | mgarfias wrote: | Mostly what i've seen is making the SBC take a | symmetrical head. Saw some INSANE CFE pro stock heads at | the machinist last year, he was building them in a large | bore, short stroke deal setup for bonneville to run like | 11krpm. | Grazester wrote: | Why did you go iron block for your build? Is it that your | were afraid you cracked the block again? How did you do | that in the first place. Are you running any boost on this | engine? | tmh88j wrote: | >I had cracked a cylinder/piston on the original LSA. I did | not trust anyone to do the work so I did a lot of research | and did it all myself | | I love working on cars so I totally get wanting to do that, | but why didn't you trust someone else to do the work? There | are probably more reputable LS builders across the US than | any other engine family. | esaym wrote: | It sounds like he wanted some very precise work done. | Quality in the blue collar trades has gone to nil in the | last decade. And if you do find someone that is very | detailed and "by the book" level of quality, you are | going to pay 3X the normal labor rate. For instance, this | is a performance transmission shop [0] that regularly | takes apart "precision" rebuilt transmissions only to | find they were not done right at all. | | [0] https://youtu.be/aI5iO2YSHMs | tmh88j wrote: | LS engines are among the most common engines in custom | built cars, and there are countless shops out there who | specialize in them. No offense to him or you, but it's | quite ridiculous to believe you can do a better job | building an engine on your first try than shops like | Texas Speed who have been doing it for decades with full | blown R&D labs and regularly build 2000+ horsepower | motors, all with highly skilled machinists and engineers | using professional equipment that the average person | would never be able to afford. | | Edit - For reference here's a video of the shop I'm | referring to. They're far from a podunk operation. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgwF5dISmU | specialp wrote: | I could do a better job than them in all due respect. I | care about my job more than anyone on earth. I know they | do good work but if we could both measure to the same | specs and know we did it right, how could I do it worse | than them. we have the same measuring tools. Not that I | think they do bad work. But if you ever built an engine | you know its all about attention to detail. there is | nothing they have to verify the integrity of the build | that I don't to a similar level of precision. | | Edit: I dont have the machines they do, but when my bare | block comes back from the machine shop, my tools are just | as good as theirs to verify the dimensions are correct. | That isn't possible to verify with a built short or long | block. They could possibly have 100 employees that care | as much about my job as me who knows. This is a job about | verification of specs and assembling correctly not of | insane tech. They don't have anything I dont when | assembling an engine. Machine work yes | selykg wrote: | Texas Speed or TKM are two places I'd use if I were doing | an LS build. | mywittyname wrote: | It helps that they are abundant (in the hundreds of | millions units produced), have been in use for decades | (since the mid-50s), and are simple to work on (as | evidence by the OP randomly learning to machine one). | | As cool as 2-atom thick plasma transfer wire arc cylinder | liners are, that's not something which will ever be | available to a layman. | mgarfias wrote: | I really doubt the OP did the machine work himself, those | tools are not affordable for just using once or twice. | Buying bore gages and mics however is totally doable. | | And no, the LS motors have been in use since '97. | Including the gen1/2 small blocks doesn't count, there | are no shared parts between them. | specialp wrote: | Yes you are right as far as LS engine builders there's | loads. I could have ordered a crate engine from Texas Speed | and been done with it. And yes for hours of my time spent | vs hours of money saved I lost a ton of money. But all it | takes is one very small mistake to make an engine short | lived with these exacting tolerances. I'd rather blame | myself than deal with someone kicking the blame back. It | was also a personal satisfaction thing. | | My wife's engine had an issue and it was the middle of | winter so I said whatever let's just have a shop fix it. In | the process they "flushed the transmission" and it failed 4 | days after we got the car back. Of course they stonewalled | us and I can't prove they broke it. So I ordered a late | model wreck transmission and replaced it and 3 years later | still running strong. | | But I then decided that I would never be in that position | again where someone could tell me it wasn't their problem | and get me aggravated. With this engine I built it from raw | parts. I had the block machined, and I had the tools to | verify. | | It was certainly not worth my time, but as you said I love | working on cars too. | Grazester wrote: | I have a buddy that is adamant about not flushing | transmissions if you dont have a issue because he think | its guaranteed to have an issue after, from his | experience. lol | Severian wrote: | There is _some_ truth to that, but not never. A flush | will dislodge any metal shavings and crud from the moving | parts. The filter should catch these, but the filters | themselves can get clogged, and then bye-bye | transmission. | | Flushing can really be bad if you've never done a routine | flush on a schedule. You don't want to go 150,000 miles | before your first one. You would need a garage with a | forced flush system to move it all out, and then probably | flush again soon after to make sure all the gunk is out. | | Transmission oil breaks down with heat and wear like any | other, and will eventually contain sludge and dirt. | philg_jr wrote: | Damn, dropping a new engine in a CTS V? What year? NA? How | much power are you shooting for? The CTS V is definitely | one of my favorite cars, I'd love to own one one day, but | the ones with the manual trans hold their value pretty well | :) | specialp wrote: | It was and still will be supercharged. It was 650 crank | Hp, and will be over 800 conservatively . and its manual | ;) | mgarfias wrote: | 17-18 thou here on my LS6 on the rods. 23-24 on the mains. | I'd like to see tighter on the mains, but not sure if its | worth ordering another set of bearings and using 1/2 of | them to tighten up 1/2 a thou like i did on the rods. | | what amazes me is the cam lifts we're running these days. | I'm running .646"/.649". In the 90s .500" was big for a | street motor, and only full blown race motors were running | whats normal now. | kirse wrote: | Subaru EJ motors munch through rod bearings quite happily. | samstave wrote: | What are the indicators that replacing them is neigh? | zeusk wrote: | Any race or high power engine, especially those that rev | quite high will need rebuild - not just in bottom end but | often with piston rings and valves as well. | | You don't really hear about those other engines much because | their buyers understand that a race engine needs more | maintenance than any other road car. | | Also, not beating on the engine until oil has warmed up to | temp will elongate the bearing lifespan quite a bit. I have a | friend with E60 6mt S85 that has factory bearings at 110k mi | and has perfect oil analysis results. | tmh88j wrote: | The S65 and S85 are road car engines, not racecar engines. | They're also hardly BMW's highest performing motors. Even | Dinan built engines don't suffer from that problem. | zeusk wrote: | They're meant to be dual duty. There aren't any road car | engines I'm aware of that use individual throttle bodies | or 12+ compression without direct injection. | tmh88j wrote: | The S54 engine which came before the S65/85, was also | high revving, had 11.5:1 compression ratio and didn't | have any of the rod bearing issues. The 20v Toyota 4AGE | also had them too with a high compression ratio. | jcoby wrote: | The S54 absolutely had rod bearing issues. There was a | recall on the 2001-2003.5 M3s to replace them and BMW | switched to 60w oil as part of the remediation. They're | still having issues to this day. | | The S54 is also notorious for VANOS issues and cam drive | failures. I had to replace the solenoid pack on mine but | elected to not upgrade the drive while I was in there. | esaym wrote: | > Also, not beating on the engine until oil has warmed up | to temp will elongate the bearing lifespan quite a bit. | | I am curious if there is proof to this. I've always felt | the same way. I know in the "old days" with iron pistons, | if you you simply started up a cold motor and and drove it | hard without a warm up period, the pistons would expand | quicker than the block and would start to scour the walls | and/or lock up. | | But other than that, the only other "proof" I have is from | people in high school that like clock work at 3:30 | everyday, would smoke tires leaving the parking lot | everyday. They seemed to go through motors every 6 months. | I'm talking knocking bearings and lifters cracked in half. | I've never gotten rough with anything I own until after a | 20 minute "warm up" and all has been well (so far). | kingsuper20 wrote: | It wasn't so much locking up or anything but cast vs. | forged. | Grazester wrote: | I thought once you replaced the crappy OEM bearings you were | all set on these engines. I guess it is not the case? | [deleted] | Sosh101 wrote: | This is amazing educational content. | qwertox wrote: | One of those web pages which deserves an award. Some place in | some kind of Internet Hall of Fame, an historical archive which | shows the only best highlights of what websites were actually | capable of presenting. Milestones of web development. | | This page summarizes pretty good what web technology is capable | of, when in the hands of a real professional. | | --- | | Ok, I just realized this is from Bartosz Ciechanowski, and this | reminded me of the Cameras and Lenses [1] article which I've seen | recently. It was the same kind of quality. | | This man is a real genius. | | [1] https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/ | pitspotter wrote: | https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/ | | > [...] We've barely scratched the surface of optics and camera | lens | | A real genius certainly, but, I'm always doing this; bad choice | of metaphor here! | [deleted] | globular-toast wrote: | Over the years I've learned how most parts of a car work at a | basic level. Engines, clutches, gearboxes, differentials etc. I | can't help but feel a bit sad that it might all go away within my | lifetime. Electric cars are essentially just a battery and a | motor. They're just not very interesting. | pierrec wrote: | Well done. According to the author's Patreon, this is his first | article that's "Paid for by patrons" though no details are given. | His Patreon is set up so that donations happen whenever he | publishes a new article. I guess the advantage over recurring | donations is that it doesn't pressure him to crank out content - | he can just do it on his own schedule, and donations are always | justified. | | https://www.patreon.com/ciechanowski | kingsuper20 wrote: | It's a lot scarier when you see things going under load at speed. | Lots of wiggling, twisty magic, waves. | | Smokey Yunick (blessed be his name) used to make see-through | timing covers, oil pans, valve covers + strobe light + some sort | of oscilloscope setup to watch the craziness. I think I remember | seeing the results for small block Chevrolet timing gears on | sprint car engines as the teeth wiggled more and more with rpm. | Cam went backwards and forwards. Ooof. | Syonyk wrote: | > _Smokey Yunick_ | | Oh, man. I'm not a huge NASCAR fan, but that guy. _That guy._ | He was an absolute _master_ of "But the rules didn't say I | couldn't..." and probably is responsible for half the thickness | of the modern rulebook on his own! | | "What? The fuel tank capacity can't have an inflated basketball | in it that springs a leak during the race, leaving us with more | fuel capacity?" | | "What? The fuel lines have to be a short path between the tank | and engine? Now, look, _nowhere in this here book_ does it say | I can 't stuff the frame rails with a couple hundred feet of | spiraled fuel line. It gets an extra gallon or two in the car? | _Really?_ Huh... " | | "Nowhere in the book does it say the bodywork has to actually | match the size or positioning of the stock car the race car is | based on. I can't help it if nobody else has totally redone the | bodywork to improve aerodynamics... oh, OK, you're bringing | cardboard templates next season, got it, that trick is done." | | The guy was an absolute master of "creative advantages that | weren't actually illegal at the time they were used." | kingsuper20 wrote: | The aero belly of his 1968 Camaro was interesting. The SBC- | powered Indy car (probably the last of home-garage built | vehicles for that race), the time he drove a NASCAR car back | from an impound without the gas tank, etc. | | Not to say that cheating didn't happen elsewhere. Check out | the front-end sheet metal of the Trans-Am Boss 302s. Use of | the headlight holes for brake ducting. The inline Autolite | carb. There were some good minds at Holman-Moody, Kar Kraft, | Bud Moore, etc. | jborichevskiy wrote: | > "What? The fuel tank capacity can't have an inflated | basketball in it that springs a leak during the race, leaving | us with more fuel capacity?" | | Pardon my ignorance- what is the motivation for temporarily | reducing the fuel capacity in this example? And why was it | disallowed? | BrentOzar wrote: | Your fuel tank was only allowed to hold a certain amount of | fuel because if you had more, you could go farther between | pit stops, thereby covering more laps while the other | drivers were stopped for gas. | | He would temporarily meet the small tank regulations during | inspection, but under race conditions, the ball would | burst, allowing for more space in the tank, which would get | filled up with more fuel than his competitors at the first | pit stop. | samstave wrote: | How was he "caught" if thats the term? | TheGallopedHigh wrote: | By the mere fact that the car wasn't pitting as often. | Car was likely inspected afterwards. | bronson wrote: | Most of them weren't pitting as often as they should. | Syonyk wrote: | I would assume that by some point, if one of his cars | won, the officials just took the whole thing apart to | find out what sort of bizarre loophole he'd found that | met the letter of the requirements while totally | violating the spirit. His antics weren't secret, even at | the time he was working. He was just _really good at it._ | matkoniecz wrote: | @TwoBit | | I guess it depends whether you accept "technically, | according to rules as written (...)" is a valid | explanation. | | Maybe I am wrong, but in racing it seems to be. | TwoBit wrote: | And nobody considers that dishonest? It's cheating in the | spirit of the rules if not the letter of the rules. | jborichevskiy wrote: | That makes sense, thanks. Clever! | ska wrote: | I suspect that it increased the fuel capacity from the | nominal "max" at race start, so when you hit a pit stop you | can put more in. | [deleted] | WalterBright wrote: | Fuel capacities are reduced to minimize the fire in fiery | crashes. But lower fuel capacity means more pit stops, | which the racer wants to minimize. | | Temporarily reducing fuel capacity means the car passes | tech inspection, but really has more capacity. | [deleted] | Syonyk wrote: | Fuel tank capacity is required to be 10 gallons. Say, 20 | laps or so. | | They check, at the tech inspection, that your tank doesn't | hold more than 10 gallons. Great. | | Except, once you deflate the basketball (or get creative | with routing fuel lines all over the car), you _actually_ | have 11-12 gallons onboard. | | Which means, at the end of the race, when everyone else has | to pit, you can make the "risky option" to skip the final | pit stop, keep rolling, and, well, surprise of surprise, | make it over the line (in first place) before you flame | out. | jborichevskiy wrote: | Ah, that explains the fuel lines as well. Very | interesting! | zombielinux wrote: | When you qualify, your fuel tank is only allowed to hold X | gallons. With the basketball inside, it held X gallons. | | When the basketball sprang a leak and deflated, the tank | held X+Y gallons, netting a slight advantage between pit | stops (an extra lap or two over 500 miles adds up) | [deleted] | jakogut wrote: | I assume the rule book specified a maximum fuel tank size, | to ensure that teams were making roughly equal pit stops | for refueling, etc. Installing a larger fuel tank with the | volume taken up by an adjustable air reservoir means the | tank starts at legal capacity, and increases in capacity | after the race begins, allowing fewer stops for refueling. | adrianpike wrote: | We had a see through engine w/strobe system at the uni I | studied vehicle engineering at, it was really really | educational to be able to adjust ignition timing and fuel | mixture and see how it would change the color & shape of the | flame front. | | Probably a ton easier to simulate it these days but at the time | it was absolute magic and really helped me understand how to | ear-tune an engine to at least good enough to get on a dyno. | gooseyard wrote: | Kevin Cameron from Cycle World has written some of the most | fantastic articles about these topics, in particular there's | one that I'm struggling to find about the problems with solid | camshaft mass when rpms started to get really high and resulted | in cam oscillation and failure, so they were made hollow, only | to then discover they got too hot, which led to making the | sodium filled, and on and on. | | Also a couple of great ones about the struggle to find alloys | for radial engine cylinders that could flex without cracking. | His writing is so insightful and concise! | towndrunk wrote: | You can get clear valve covers for some BMW motorcycles now. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE71lpgJ4ng | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | How much of that was really metal elasticity and how much | artifacts of the camera technology used, eg. rolling shutter? | | I work with metals all day every day, and damn can it flex, but | would have imagined the high carbon steels used in engines | would he fairly still. | bob1029 wrote: | Reciprocating machines are fairly remarkable when you consider | all of the components involved, forces, etc. Even more so when | you think about how long a typical car engine lasts. | | These incredible forces are why rotary and turbine engines are | substantially more reliable. Some gas turbines have only 1 | moving part, and in some applications this moving part | experiences zero wear due to magnetic/aerodynamic/active | bearings. | kingsuper20 wrote: | Rotaries are a funny case. Look good on paper. Thermal | efficiency issues. Smog. Seals. Noise control difficulties. | Weird patches like bridge ports. | | For modern passenger cars, it's kind of like overcoming the | difficulties of two-stroke. | | In anti-defense of 4-stroke ICE, it seems to me like we are | hitting peak wacky complexity of those. Variable timing cams, | turn off the cylinders, direct port injection, turbos, | variable intake, complicated ECU. It's a far cry from a | flathead 6 or VW flat 4. | | Thank God electric cars are becoming more available, although | I fear increasingly complex cooling and battery management | and the 1000 things a software guy is going to add to them. | elihu wrote: | > Thank God electric cars are becoming more available, | although I fear increasingly complex cooling and battery | management and the 1000 things a software guy is going to | add to them. | | I'm hoping lithium iron phosphate starts to be used more in | midrange vehicles; partly because they can be scaled up | while sidestepping the potential resource bottlenecks | around cobalt and nickel, and partly because they're very | durable and cooling isn't usually much of an issue. Though | heating might be an issue in the winter time (most LFP | cells don't like being charged when temperatures are below | freezing; heating might be necessary in winter). | bitexploder wrote: | [*] more reliable in theory. Mazda RX8 and rotary engines are | famous for being a bit maintenance heavy and unreliable. | | The amount of engineering and brain power that has gone into | making common ICE engines in cars in wide deployment reliable | is staggering. | bob1029 wrote: | Agreed on automotive rotary. It's not in the same spirit as | the gas turbine and others. | roflchoppa wrote: | i just got a driveshaft balanced for my 240z, it was 2/3oz out | on the front and 1/3oz out on the tail. I was thinking how much | force would that generate at speed. | | Hopefully the vibration problem is gone. | tyingq wrote: | The quality of the explanations, and progression of complexity, | reminded me of an old video that explains how a car's | differential (rear end) works: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAw79386WI | | Skip to 3:30 for the explanatory part. | npunt wrote: | Another great Bartosz Ciechanowski creation. Also check out his | past work [1] about light & shadows, cameras & lenses, color | spaces, floating point, etc. | | [1] https://ciechanow.ski/archives | fideloper wrote: | whoops thought this was an article about basecamp | toxik wrote: | This was excellent, but should perhaps be clarified that this is | a gasoline engine - diesels don't ignite by spark, but by immense | pressure in the chamber. This also invalidates the "you cannot | add fuel to increase power" of gasoline engines. Diesels can (and | should!) run at lower rpm; they don't stall because the ECU can | add fuel to increase power output. | keanebean86 wrote: | What I want to try is replacing valves with electric iris | mechanisms. The computer would signal the iris to open or close | depending on the situation. | | No more complicated variable valve stuff. Just hold the iris | open longer. Also no more interference engines and timing | chain/belt changes. | | Iris: | https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iris_Diaphragm.gif | | Edit: fixed typo, added link to iris gif | toxik wrote: | It's a good question, why is only fuel injection and ignition | computer controlled? The intake and exhaust valves must also | be solenoid controllable. | opwieurposiu wrote: | This exists, but it is very expensive. | https://www.freevalve.com/freevalve-technology/ | LeonM wrote: | Swedish hypercar builder Koenigsegg has made a system like | this, they call it FreeValve. | | Their upcoming car called the Gemera will feature | FreeValve, its 2.0L 4-cylinder is said to generate over | 600HP. Though it must be said that this is a 1.5 million | dollar car, so don't expect this kind of performance per | displacement from other brands. | | A guy on Youtube made his own version of freevalve, and got | it to work on a Mazda Miata: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9KJ_f7REGw | golemiprague wrote: | Because of reliability and the potential damage, not | injecting fuel is not such a big deal but a stucked valve | can cause serious damage with all the pressure inside the | cylinder. There are some cars now with no camshaft, but | they are very high end experimental sport cars like | Koenigsegg | Severian wrote: | And thus the reason why there's such as thing as a runaway | diesel engine. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-30 23:00 UTC)