Please someone do this...

[rjwoods77]

... because I dont have enough time/too stupid to do this. I was playing with it at the detroit auto show a number of years ago for like an hour.

http://cp_www.tripod.com/rotary/images/pg03_10b.jpg

[rjwoods77]

... because I dont have enough time/too stupid to do this. I was playing with it at the detroit auto show a number of years ago for like an hour.

http://cp_www.tripod.com/rotary/images/pg03_10b.jpg

[Denny Trimble]

It's been done several times by several teams. In '98 I think it was U. of Florida that I saw with it, and more recently I believe UWA ran a variable intake system of some sort.

[Mike Claffey]

Ben Inkster wrote a good article on the 04 UWA Intake (which he designed)and it was published in the latest Race Engine Tech. The link above is dead so not sure what its refering to.

[Didier Beaudoin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Claffey:
Ben Inkster wrote a good article on the 04 UWA Intake (which he designed)and it was published in the latest Race Engine Tech. The link above is dead so not sure what its refering to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just copy/paste in your address bar.

[Homemade WRX]

there was a team in 04 that did variable length, but I don't recall whether or not is was UWA...I think it was a foreign team...but my memory sucks...

[Mike Claffey]

Didier, thanks, I shoulda tryed it. The variable runner setup shown looks great, but accomodating say from 0-500mm variable length would leave you with quite a long and large plenum - which could affect your throttle response. Then again you could have the plenum volume fixed to the end of the runners, but it looks like the motor would live a harsh life.

[rjwoods77]

Denny,

I know thesy exsisted in general but i didnt know if anyone did a telescopic trumpet design. I just loved the way it worked. If I ever did a muscle car I would love to do a hilborn style manifold with telescopic turmpets through the hood. Would be fun to look at like a shaker scoop or gm style hood flapper.

[Kurt Bilinski]

I saw one for BMW I believe, that was a spiral housing that rotated to make the spiral path the correct length. A neat way to cram a long intake into a small area.

[Matt Gignac]

I'm pretty sure ETS ran a variable geometry intake system in 2004, but the little solenoid actuator failed before comp so they just locked it in one position.

And they still managed to have a reasonable sized plenum, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't some telescopic design.

Matt Gignac
McGill Racing Team

[terra_dactile]

Hello all
In 2004 we had a variable length runner intake, as mike mentioned it was not functional in competition due to a eltronic motor failure
(cheap plastic gears) the setup worked so that thier was a cylinder inside the intake that had 4 slots in it to send air to each cylinder(engine). The air would comein one side of the cylinder and the other side had the motor to rotate it. Around it each Cylinder had a 9 shaped runner, 1 for each engine Cylinder, so if the slot was rotated one way the air would travel from the inside of the number nine all the way to the bottom of the number making for a long runner, but as you rotate the slot would become closer to the Cylinder of the engine making for a short runner, I know that it must not be clear but i will post a picture when i get to school so it will be clearer. the difficulty was to have a electric motor that would keep up to the rpm change of the engine, because if the runner length is off by a little bit the hole system loses its advantage.
Supposedly at one point a 7 seires BMW had a similar concept on their cars.

Jude Berthault
ETS Formula SAE
(2004-Present)

[Dave M]

USC ran one in 04. Not sure how good it was. Pretty sure it used vacuum to control the length.

[Ben Inkster]

The telescopic design in the photo looks very similar to a mazda rotary design ued on some of there race engines, F1 use this method as well but with much smaller trumpets due to the higher engine speeds (hence shorter wavelengths). The problem with telescopic is that the length variation can only change between %100 and %50 of maximum length, where as a rotary style variable intake has more length adjustment and better packaging for FSAE.

Claffey, I still haven't gone down to pick up a copy of the latest Race Engine Tech, how lazy am I after fsae! I think I'll get one tomorrow.

Cheers
-Ben

[JerryLH3]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ben Inkster:
The telescopic design in the photo looks very similar to a mazda rotary design ued on some of there race engines, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It took Mazda quite a few years to get that right. The system started out as a couple of different lengths and eventually ended up stepless in 1991, the year they finally won Le Mans.

[DonMolina]

Continually variale intake runners are going to be an aboslute pain in the ass.

Tuning the thing just right will take some serious time and effort.

But as a design it's so neat that someone really has to make it.

After all that's what racing is all about. Throwing away money and effort to get a .5% increase in performance

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Grant Mahler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Continually variale intake runners are going to be an aboslute pain in the ass.

Tuning the thing just right will take some serious time and effort.

But as a design it's so neat that someone really has to make it.

After all that's what racing is all about. Throwing away money and effort to get a .5% increase in performance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy thread from the dead, Batman!

BMW uses multiple pieces to have a rotary stepless intake system. Its on several of their cars now.

[Drew Price]

....and more FSAE teams than I can easily count on my fingers use either continuous or stepped variable geometry in some form or another.

I do not agree with you that it's about 'throwing away money for a 0.5% increase.' 0.5% is huge in nearly any competitive sport, which is what this is. Why do you think there are $40 golf balls, and $8M violins? (OK, not exactly competitive, unless you have been through a few rounds of auditions for the NY Phil, or applied to Julliard....)

The reason there are rule books is to curb the throwing money away, and try to steer where the sport does the development.

And I can't easily think of serious factory homologation efforts, but motor racing used to be a way for manufacturers to expand their understanding and hone new and experimental technologies that trickle down to make the products you can buy less expensive, safer, and more reliable.

At least, back in the old days, before the Doctor / Lawyer series' came along.

Best,
Drew

[Mikey Antonakakis]

I am ashamed that I did not know that about BMW. I DO know the m44 used a dual-resonance intake manifold, though.

[DonMolina]

"throwing away money" is just a figure of speech http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

obviously
http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There's a quote (cant' remember it /being 40 hours awake http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ) that goes a little like:

"Women and racing are the two things where you are allowed to invest huge amounts of money and effort just to get the slightest result"




As far as the topic is concerned, nowadays variable intake seems to be all the rage. Advantages are pretty good and the implementation is nowhere near impossible.



PS. Mikey patriotis? Edw polytexneio, edw polytexneio http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Mikey Antonakakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DonMolina:

PS. Mikey patriotis? Edw polytexneio, edw polytexneio http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Katalaveno ligo elinika... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[mech5107]

As posted above, many teams use variable length and volume intake systems. This means that it does work and worth the money and the effort. It's not only power, but it probably gives better response and drivability and saves seconds of the lap time. More over, a well designed and excecuted system, gives points in design and maybe marketing.
But there is teams that used it once and then dropped it.

I would say that everything sums up on what the general setup of the car needs. If someone use the engine only in a small range of rpm, with very closed ratio gearbox, then this system is not needed. If you drive using mainly second and 3rd, using a wide range of rpms, then it really worth it.
But first, you have to make a car run well and later someone could imply such a system.

Finally, as a rule of thumb, i would say that the 4-cylinders would benefit from VR intakes more than the singles, as verified from the increasing usage of the systems from teams like Gratz and the drop from the RMIT.