limitations of engineering
limitations of engineering
i don't know if i'm too presumptuous to be posting this but i think many people don't understand the inherent limitations of engineering in different aspects of automotive design.
one of the best examples i've ever seen of an explanation for one type of limitation on engineering is lifted from suspension bible where the author talks about how the age old problem in suspension design is to keep all wheels acting indepentantly of each other and have each's parameters change minimally with the dynamics that the vehicle goes through.
now we see in applications this is truly a problem as with sway bars and such devices the wheels are attatched to each other and in extreme corning situations can even lift the opposing wheel. we also see that the different bump and rebound damping settings are cause for much complication because one cannot help but affect the other. also wtih springs rating, you can go stiffer but that affects your ride and eventually with enough stiffness will affect your ability to maintain maximum grip threshold in uneven course situations. all these seemingly oxymoronic situations demanding for a solution.
luckily for suspension there is a solution, with pnumatic suspension it is possible to control all 4 wheels seperately, it's possible to affect camber minimally with wheel movement, it's possible to maintain outside and inside wheels flat on teh road and most importantly it's possible to provide DIFFERENT camping and springing (via air and oil) to each wheel as it's needed. of course pnumatic suspension is very complex and costly which of course is another engineering oxymoronic limitation in and of itself.
another problem in engineering is the cylinder head. we all know if you get race cams and you tune them for top end, your bottom end will suck. if you want your bottom end to suck less then you advance the timing on the gears and your top end sucks a bit. we know if you use a high lift cam then at wot you're moving nice amounts of air and the power is good, but at low rpm your idle could suck or from a manufacture's standpoint you face an emissions problem.
luckily there's a solution to this also. the fact is if you fix everything then there's this nature's law of trade off. but if you can make the cam timing and lift vary then you could reap the benefits of both worlds. this is what vtec vvtli mivec et al try to accomplish. they are moveable cam gears and variable lift cams and when packaged as a system they give you teh ability to have the best of both worlds.
limitations in engineering also apply to the engine's bottom end. there is truly no replacement for displacement. if all else is held equal (turbochargers, cylinder head cleverness, cylinder design cleverness etc) a bigger engine will just make more power. but there are tradeoffs to this too albeit subtle. many times it is difficult to provide a large cylinder with enough atomized fuel to create a clean and complete combustion. from a manufacture's standpoint this makes passing smog difficult. larger engines of course take up more space, in cars like the rx7 that's just not a clever alternative. larger engines take up more space so there's less space for other parts like dual over head cams, which is why many high performance chevy engines such as the ls7 ls1 ls2 and ls4 still use push rods, the viper engine too.
limitations in engineering apply to turbochargers too. the big idea is that a small turbocharger won't flow enough air up top. the stock evo turbo is a perfect example. you get boost taper and lose power and torque. however larger turbos as they are able to hold and move larger amounts of boost and air take a longer time to spool up. so you get people like buschur trying to make a compromise, putting a bigger wheel in the smaller turbo to try to get a little more out of it so you don't get the drastic losses. and on the opposite end of the spectrum you have people tuning no lift shift and antilag into their large turbo cars to get them to spool well off the launch. there are also variable nozzle turbo chargers, albeit not successful in cars right now, and that's another engineering ploy to VARY things so you get the best of both worlds.
of course in the end the ultimate limitaton to engineering is price. many problems can be solved with the ultimate materials and the ultimate cleverness but this will ultimally result in ultimate pricetag which then poses the problem of: if no one uses your product, is it the best?
one of the best examples i've ever seen of an explanation for one type of limitation on engineering is lifted from suspension bible where the author talks about how the age old problem in suspension design is to keep all wheels acting indepentantly of each other and have each's parameters change minimally with the dynamics that the vehicle goes through.
now we see in applications this is truly a problem as with sway bars and such devices the wheels are attatched to each other and in extreme corning situations can even lift the opposing wheel. we also see that the different bump and rebound damping settings are cause for much complication because one cannot help but affect the other. also wtih springs rating, you can go stiffer but that affects your ride and eventually with enough stiffness will affect your ability to maintain maximum grip threshold in uneven course situations. all these seemingly oxymoronic situations demanding for a solution.
luckily for suspension there is a solution, with pnumatic suspension it is possible to control all 4 wheels seperately, it's possible to affect camber minimally with wheel movement, it's possible to maintain outside and inside wheels flat on teh road and most importantly it's possible to provide DIFFERENT camping and springing (via air and oil) to each wheel as it's needed. of course pnumatic suspension is very complex and costly which of course is another engineering oxymoronic limitation in and of itself.
another problem in engineering is the cylinder head. we all know if you get race cams and you tune them for top end, your bottom end will suck. if you want your bottom end to suck less then you advance the timing on the gears and your top end sucks a bit. we know if you use a high lift cam then at wot you're moving nice amounts of air and the power is good, but at low rpm your idle could suck or from a manufacture's standpoint you face an emissions problem.
luckily there's a solution to this also. the fact is if you fix everything then there's this nature's law of trade off. but if you can make the cam timing and lift vary then you could reap the benefits of both worlds. this is what vtec vvtli mivec et al try to accomplish. they are moveable cam gears and variable lift cams and when packaged as a system they give you teh ability to have the best of both worlds.
limitations in engineering also apply to the engine's bottom end. there is truly no replacement for displacement. if all else is held equal (turbochargers, cylinder head cleverness, cylinder design cleverness etc) a bigger engine will just make more power. but there are tradeoffs to this too albeit subtle. many times it is difficult to provide a large cylinder with enough atomized fuel to create a clean and complete combustion. from a manufacture's standpoint this makes passing smog difficult. larger engines of course take up more space, in cars like the rx7 that's just not a clever alternative. larger engines take up more space so there's less space for other parts like dual over head cams, which is why many high performance chevy engines such as the ls7 ls1 ls2 and ls4 still use push rods, the viper engine too.
limitations in engineering apply to turbochargers too. the big idea is that a small turbocharger won't flow enough air up top. the stock evo turbo is a perfect example. you get boost taper and lose power and torque. however larger turbos as they are able to hold and move larger amounts of boost and air take a longer time to spool up. so you get people like buschur trying to make a compromise, putting a bigger wheel in the smaller turbo to try to get a little more out of it so you don't get the drastic losses. and on the opposite end of the spectrum you have people tuning no lift shift and antilag into their large turbo cars to get them to spool well off the launch. there are also variable nozzle turbo chargers, albeit not successful in cars right now, and that's another engineering ploy to VARY things so you get the best of both worlds.
of course in the end the ultimate limitaton to engineering is price. many problems can be solved with the ultimate materials and the ultimate cleverness but this will ultimally result in ultimate pricetag which then poses the problem of: if no one uses your product, is it the best?
i was going to post a whole speil on engineering as well ( i am one ), but mainly....engineering has become political and repetitive in industry. most jobs now rely on whats proven and innovative, but rarely something brand new out of the box.
Originally Posted by Aluma
kinda like the Coates Head...I saw it years ago in a mag. now that looked promising.
Originally Posted by JeffR116
While I appreciate you taking the time to post this, there is nothing groundbreaking or impressive in your post.
Originally Posted by trinydex
now you can tell people that will be impressed to read it. cuz that's who it's for. this was meant to be one of those... search this this this threads... where the this this this is in this thread.
