F1 camless engines

[alex h]

With the current interest in reducing costs, greater reliability and slower speeds, why are camless engine's allowed especially when the currently used technology cannot (as far as I know) be used in road/passenger car engines?

The basis for my question is that they still use a Pneumatic valve system in F1, if I am wrong in this assumption, forgive me but I'll contine

Camless Pnematic valve trains should be banned in my opinion because this would change the face of racing in F1. I would ban all cam systems not adaptable to the modern petrol or diesel engine. This would mean you could use traditional cams but they would be forced at the same time to put more research into electromagnetic valve actuation systems like those prototyped by Lotus Engineering. Electromagnetic valve actuation needs to be researched more and motorsport is the best place to do it. But in the mean time the engines could use a dohc system with cam wheels.
This would have several effects -
lower engine speeds
CoG raised
weight gain?
better reliability
reduced fuel consumption
reduced corner speeds
a drag race in the tow of another car should be long enough for the tow to give a real help to the chasing car instead of them blatting down the straights at lightspeed /
Unit price of each engine should be lower.

A major con is the initial cost of the redesign but they would be designing a new engine anyway, so it shouldn't be that much of an issue.
The other one is that the rich teams will plough more money into the electromagnetic/solenoid systems but this should/would benefit jo public in the long run. An argument can be made for this opening F1 up to increased cost, but it's worth it in my opinion and change always costs.

This change alone would see more research in cam/valvetrain design, it would slow the cars down and if they build them properly reduce engine failure's due to the cam system (though I recognise when you're pushing the limits then things break).

I only thought about this at the weekend but wondered what you all thought of this. Am I barking up the wrong tree in the wrong field? Or should I run for President of the FIA (After all it's better than lopping off 2 cylinders )

Regards

[Martin F]

Quote[/b] (alex h @ June 22 2004,16:15)]With the current interest in reducing costs, greater reliability and slower speeds, why are camless engine's allowed especially when the currently used technology cannot (as far as I know) be used in road/passenger car engines?
What makes you say that ?

A lot of the steps forward in F1 eventually trickle down to the domestic road car, even if not in their original guise.

[Chris Wilson]

A camless design with lower costs, as would inevitably have occured with mass production is almost a Holy Grail for road car engine makers. It would give the dinosaur piston engine a new lease of life, performance V emissions regs wise. If F1 had kept turbo engines I have NO DOUBT we would all be driving around behind some really trick turbo technology in our rep mobiles. Variable vane technology would alomost certainly have mutated across from the colder combusting diesel engine, and who knows what else those fertile minds and mega budgets would have conjured up. F1 is a showcase for ingenuity, technology and occasionally plain barmy ideas, but the list of road car technolgy that has filtered down from it is legion. Bring it on http://www.mkivsupra.co.uk/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[alex h]

Martin - certainly the older F1 Pnematic systems had to be re-pressurised before use. This is of absolutely no use to a passenger car, you'd have to carry a tank of gas everywhere with you. Unless the current systems don't leakdown?

The electromagnetic/soleniod camless system is much more condusive to Road use as it requires no input for the owner. And the benefits are well documented with it being a totally "digital" system - you can open and shut the valves as far as you like for as long as you like...

But just using a cam-ed engine WOULD slow F1 cars down and WOULD reduce costs i'm sure/allow other engine makers to build high spec enough engines.

[Chris Wilson]

Quote[/b] (alex h @ June 22 2004,22:31)]Martin - certainly the older F1 Pnematic systems had to be re-pressurised before use. This is of absolutely no use to a passenger car, you'd have to carry a tank of gas everywhere with you. Unless the current systems don't leakdown?

The electromagnetic/soleniod camless system is much more condusive to Road use as it requires no input for the owner. And the benefits are well documented with it being a totally "digital" system - you can open and shut the valves as far as you like for as long as you like...

But just using a cam-ed engine WOULD slow F1 cars down and WOULD reduce costs i'm sure/allow other engine makers to build high spec enough engines.
i think some people believe pneumatic valve gear is cam LESS, it's not, the inert gas is used to replace the metal valve springs, the valves are still operated by camshafts. Current engines use a pump to keep the sytem recharged, and a reservoir for a reserve gas supply. Pneumatic valve "springs" are solely there to allow higher revs. Given a capacity limit and none foreced induction rules you need to maximize efficiency and / or turn higher revs. So pneumatic valve gear would be out of place on a road engine as they never turn anything like enough revs to go beyond cheap and cheerful valve spring technology. Solenoid activated, camless engines are an entirely different kettle of fish though, and therein lies the next generation of piston engines.

[Nathan]

Talking of closing the valve without a spring reminds me just how far ahead the Ducati Desmo valvetrain is/was!!

I agree too though, camless designs sound very interesting. I guess HKS had better have a VSC (Valve Solonoid Controller) on the drawing board!

[alex h]

thanks Chris, I was indeed mistaken in assuming the Pneumatic systems was camless.