Intake Manifold Article

[Daves]

A student from the University of Pittsburgh showed me an article about intake and exhaust manifold design written by someone from Cornell (I think). The Pitt student said he printed it from SAE.org. However, I cannot find it. If you know the article I'm speaking of, please inform me of its location. Thanks.

[Matt Thio]

There is an article about intake design using helmholtz - find the SAE paper by searching. it appears that many teams use this formula. However, many teams fail to test it's validity, and use it too liberally. it's a balance of things.

[Daves]

I think I found it at the following address:

http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=PAPER&PROD_CD=2001-01-1211

However, I did not know that I would have to pay for it. I think I will gather information from libraries and actual testing. This year the design judges claimed our intake manifold was way too large -- they said the general consensus was that it should be 0.5-2 times larger than the displacement of the engine. I wonder why they would say that. Our car ran fine and seemed to produce plenty of power (~ 80 horsepower at the "wheel" with our intake and exhaust on it; I say "wheel" because the engine was connected to a single motorcycle wheel when dyno'd). Would it be a good idea to start on our 2004 car by first dyno'ing our previous cars with a wheel dynamometer to see how well our engines really worked?

[Charlie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dave_s:
This year the design judges claimed our intake manifold was way too large -- they said the general consensus was that it should be 0.5-2 times larger than the displacement of the engine. I wonder why they would say that. Our car ran fine and seemed to produce plenty of power <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The judges don't know exactly what your volume should be. But if they seem to think that it is larger than it should be, and you can't tell them why its the size it is, then you will be docked points. Judging from your reasoning, it 'ran fine and seemed to produce plenty of power' I'd say you don't know why you chose that size. Do you know why? Because that's all the judges are looking for. Good reasoning.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Mick_P]

Charlie hit is smack-bang on the head....

Mick Partridge
Swinburne University
2004 FSAE
Dynamics Leader

[woollymoof]

dave_s, post your email address, I can send you a few SAE papers written by Formula SAE students about engine stuff. Make sure that your account is empty because some of them are very large.

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[Scott Wordley]

Dave,

Intake size like most things in FSAE is a trade off between a whole lot of factors.

Obviously your runner diameter will come from your diameter of your ports, and the runner length and shape tuned for your desired power band. I'd generally consider this volume fixed as there is nothing you can really do to minimise it further.

The plenum volume is generally what the judges worry about being oversized. Its obvious primary function is to distribute air evenly and with minial restriction from the termination of the restrictor to all 4 intake runners. This is easy to do with a central feed intake and harder if your feeding from the side, which may mean you need to add more volume or make more efficient use of the volume you have. Look at enough photos of other cars and you'll quickly see a number of ways of doing this.

The main gripe with oversized plenums is obviously throttle response, seen as the throttle is a long way upstream and the engine has to use all the air between there and the ports before it registers a change in throttle, MAP speaking. Obviously the restrictor counts in this volume too.

I agree with Charlie, judges don;t know everything and can be wrong at times. Remember that most of them (here at least) come from a "Big Three" passenger car company and may of their rules of thumb are totally inappropriate for this competition, see Dicks comments on Ally rotors. With regard to the "it should be 0.5-2 times larger than the displacement of the engine" just think about it for a second.
Is it even possible to have a 300cc plenum or even a 1.2L one for that matter? Our restrictor alone is more than 500cc.How badly are you prepared to compromise your flow to the runners?

Rules such as this are usually based on lazy big capacity passenger car engines, running unrestricted to a red line of 5000RPM. If you can't argue that this rule does not apply to your engine and provide supporting arguments as to why then you will be marked down in design judging. And rightly so.

Regards,

Scott Wordley

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[Scott Wordley]

Dave,

Checked your website, very nice rookie car.

I think the judges problems may have been with the filter downstream of the throttle if thats what you ended up running. Big increase to plenum volume. But if it made the car better then you just have to justify it with data.

Regards,

Scott Wordley

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~fsae

[Daves]

my email address: davidstoteraREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com

[This message was edited by dave_s on July 13, 2003 at 01:43 AM.]

[woollymoof]

that should be right now

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[This message was edited by woollymoof on July 13, 2003 at 08:14 PM.]

[woollymoof]

the largest file couldn't get through, 2.7meg, its not the one you were refering to though

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[This message was edited by woollymoof on July 13, 2003 at 08:30 PM.]

[Daves]

I downloaded and deleted the one's you sent me, so I have about 5.5 MB of space free now. I'd appreciate the other article if you'd be obliged to send it to me.

[woollymoof]

didn't work, it just says the file is too big, your account might have, say, a 2 meg max per email.

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[Charlie]

If you like, you can email me and I will post a link here. cpmaverick@yahoo.com

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Daves]

ok, so if it won't work with Yahoo, try sending it to these accounts:

hulkhogan@address.com and

fif4183REMOVETHIS@metacrawler.com

[Daves]

Thanks for the files.

I wish the following was not true, though:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This forum only allows messages to be changed for 720 minutes after posting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Banacek]

Can you make these papers available to others? I don't have an email account capable of holding any large amount, but maybe if you could put it up on some website...

Banacek

[woollymoof]

Don't know how, I'm no techno geek. If anyone else knows how I could email the files to them.

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[woollymoof]

Perhaps the adminsitrators could set up something. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[Charlie]

Like I said, I can host it for you. Just shoot the articles to me by email cpmaverick@yahoo.com

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[woollymoof]

I've got a shit load more papers, like 700+ meg worth, mostly engine stuff that I think is somewhat relevant to what we're doing, but also some chassis/crash/ergo stuff and even less suspension stuff. Pretty much all of them I havn't read though, if the title looked relevant then I down loaded it. I'm getting through them, slowly.

I'm not sure it we'd be able to get all of these on the site.

And Charlie, sent those files except the 2.7 meg one got knocked back.

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[Charlie]

http://www.auburn.edu/~pingiii/SAE/

Now, lets see, I'm not too sure how legal this is, so you are not allowed to view these papers unles you've already purchased these papers from SAE. Or if you do you do so at your own risk. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kirk, try to send me the 2.7 file now.

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[woollymoof]

tried and failed, too big. Pity, it was one of the better ones. Have you got another address I can send it to?

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[Charlie]

try aufsae03@yahoo.com

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Banacek]

I'll ask our server admin if he can spare some space so you can FTP it. I might even be able to find the full 700MB you need.

I'll make it publicly available for a short period of time too.

This may take a few days (or weeks) to set up as our admin is presently doing astronaut training or something like that.

Banacek

[PatClarke]

Attn Charlie and Kirk,

Hi.
It probably does no favours for the somewhat strained relationship that exists between this site and the SAE by posting SAE papers on here for download.
It's not as if the papers are expensive. Perhaps it would be more prudent to simply post a link to the SAE download site and do the business properly.
Mate, those papers are not yours to give away.
Regards
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Banacek]

Hmmm... good point.

On a related note, how many people here have the SAE digital library available through their school library?

banacek

[Daves]

Perhaps this thread could be deleted.

[Charlie]

On that note, I've removed the papers from the above URL. You can buy the papers online at sae.org. The papers referenced were the following:

2000-01-3090

2000-02-3092

2002-01-0457

2002-01-3295

-Charlie Ping
Auburn University FSAE (http://eng.auburn.edu/organizations/SAE/AUFSAE)
5th Overall Detroit 2003
? Overall Aussie 2003. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PatClarke]

Good move Charlie http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Pat

Rudeness is a weak mans imitation of strength

[Frank]

imo,

those papers aren't that good anyway

[inamo]

It's a shame the FSAE and Formula Student don't support this site, I'm guessing its for legal reasons. I only found it after the Formula Student page said it wasn't anything to do with them. Annoying since I had questions I needed answers for during the design phase of my project!

[woollymoof]

Frank, your right but the one that I couldn't get through 2002-01-3316 isn't that bad.

Cheers,

Kirk Veitch
Swinburne University of Technology

[JConway-UofManitoba]

10dollars US hurts when you are canadian! haha

It would be cool if SAE.org had at least some abstracts for the articles.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys download them or have them mailed?

Any of you guys use the techselect program?

As for the digital library....no, my university doesn't subscribe to it. Any ideas how much it costs?

[JConway-UofManitoba]

Oh...and if anyone has other paper numbers, I'd definately be interested in checking them out.

JPC