Aston Martin's Cosworth 6.5L 1000 hp V12 is NATURALLY ASPIRATED

Greg: Richard Hurdwell might be able to help on SID,  It was his project, and he has a presence on the web.

Richard Hurdwell the clubman car racer and constructor?

He He. I was just about to pen an apologetic reply (you are certainly entitled to express healthy scepticism) then read your final sentence. This piece of crap identifies you as a "climate extremist" - well beyond a mere "climate sceptic".
 
Although I believe in AGM, I have no idea of the sensitivity and even allow for a small possibility (perhaps 10%) that AGM does not exist. This is a very realistic attitude and typical of the view held by most Australians.
 
On Ev's - blind Freddy can see they are coming. In 50 years time 90-100% of vehicle sales will be powered by something other than fossil fuel - most probably battery electric. It is 2019 now and the lifetime costs of EV's are roughly at par with petrol cars (depending of course on the operating mode but certainly for the most common use - city commuter). Range anxiety and other issues are currently holding back sales but lifetime cost is at a crossover point and changing rapidly. Hell - we aren't even seeing the efficiencies that come with high volume production . . . . yet.

You accuse me of being a "Climate Sceptic/Climate Extremist"?? Well of course I bloody am! This hardly a bloody insult - try "Closet Warmist" or something similar.
I think your words "I believe in AGM" are very significant. What you really mean is "I don't give a bugger if there is absolutely no sign of AGM happening - I am still going to fervently believe in the God of AGM".

It's been about 30 years since all this crap about CO2/AGM started. Weren't the sea levels supposed to rise to alarming levels - drowning much of the population? Surely there should be some sign of a rise after 30 years.
But - there hasn't been even the slightest fraction of a millfirkin (an mf is an extremely small amount) rise in the oceans. I saw the other day that the low-lying Pacific Islands that are apparently sliding beneath the waves are actually increasing very slightly in area. But they are still receiving a lot of money from Oz and NZ to protect them against the horrors of sea level rise.
This of course is what, in a nutshell, AGM (what the hell is AGM - shouldn't it be AGW?) is all about - too many people are making a lot of money out of it - and it's in their interest to keep promoting it as hard as they can.

As for electric cars? I like them in themselves. What I don't like is the linkage between AGM enthusiasts and EVs. And of course there is the unsolvable problem of recharging.
Didn't you used to write that we'd all be driving EVs in 10 years? Now it's 50? In 50 years time we may all be driving cars powered by Star Trek-style element 115 anti matter reactors. (Or if the AGM crowd get their way we'll be back to horse-drawn vehicles and bikes - with only the AGM elite and Labor Party leaders driving cars (and probably not electric ones either).

It is 2019 now and the lifetime costs of EV's are roughly at par with petrol cars (depending of course on the operating mode but certainly for the most common use - city commuter). Range anxiety and other issues are currently holding back sales but lifetime cost is at a crossover point and changing rapidly. Hell - we aren't even seeing the efficiencies that come with high volume production . . . . yet.

I'm not here to talk about climate change. And if the mods want to move my comment to a more relevant thread, I'm agreeable. Most amenable.

 

Problems with high volume production of EVs are high volume extraction and refining of the materials required for batteries, motors and even control systems. The lifetime consumer cost of an EV (high capital up front, lower fuel and running costs) may suit wealthier buyers of today. But if EVs are to become normal, purchase cost (without subsidy) has to fall. And when EV manufacturing costs fall, we have to consider the environmental impact of material extraction more seriously.

 

In Europe, we congratulate ourselves for our enlightened environmental laws and ignore that we have shifted problems somewhere else. Steel production: we make high value steel in Europe but other countries can make the other 99%, so long as it doesn't count on our CO2 emissions. The rush to extract more lithium ore is certain to hurt people in the developing world. 

 

Legislators require crash tests and emissions rules for novelty cars such as the AM Valkyrie, manufactured in small numbers and used for small mileages. Considering all of the problems that road vehicles create, these laws are like micturating in a force 10 gale. 

Richard Hurdwell the clubman car racer and constructor?

Here, hopefully:

 

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/richard-hurdwell-2145959

You accuse me of being a "Climate Extremist"?? Well of course I bloody am!

It is one thing to be sceptical of a prevailing scientific view. Quite another to assert a recklessly contrary OPINION as FACT on the basis of . . . . absolutely nothing. You are rubbing shoulders with flat-earthers and creation scientists. Perhaps you believe the lunar landing was faked? 

Weren't the sea levels supposed to rise to alarming levels - drowning much of the population? Surely there should be some sign of a rise after 30 years.
But - there hasn't been even the slightest fraction of a millfirkin (an mf is an extremely small amount) rise in the oceans.

 

I have been trying to estimate the size of the millifirkin. The best I can come up with is somewhere between a kilometre and a light-year?

 

Edited by gruntguru, 02 January 2019 - 23:44.

I'm not here to talk about climate change. And if the mods want to move my comment to a more relevant thread, I'm agreeable. Most amenable.
 
Problems with high volume production of EVs are high volume extraction and refining of the materials required for batteries, motors and even control systems. The lifetime consumer cost of an EV (high capital up front, lower fuel and running costs) may suit wealthier buyers of today. But if EVs are to become normal, purchase cost (without subsidy) has to fall. And when EV manufacturing costs fall, we have to consider the environmental impact of material extraction more seriously.
 
In Europe, we congratulate ourselves for our enlightened environmental laws and ignore that we have shifted problems somewhere else. Steel production: we make high value steel in Europe but other countries can make the other 99%, so long as it doesn't count on our CO2 emissions. The rush to extract more lithium ore is certain to hurt people in the developing world. 
 
Legislators require crash tests and emissions rules for novelty cars such as the AM Valkyrie, manufactured in small numbers and used for small mileages. Considering all of the problems that road vehicles create, these laws are like micturating in a force 10 gale.

If you micturate in the same direction as the force 10 gale you should be OK.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 03 January 2019 - 04:12.

It is one thing to be sceptical of a prevailing scientific view. Quite another to assert a recklessly contrary OPINION as FACT on the basis of . . . . absolutely nothing. You are rubbing shoulders with flat-earthers and creation scientists. Perhaps you believe the lunar landing was faked?

Crap. Even normally sane people who should know better (and I must include the gg in this group) have been so inundated by the overwhelming flood of propaganda from the GW mob that they are starting to believe something might be happening - but, by any practical standard, the Earth's climate is much the same as ever.

Of course the lunar landing wasn't faked - but it was carried out using technology from the Alien Lizard People - everybody knows that.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 03 January 2019 - 04:43.

I have been trying to estimate the size of the millifirkin. The best I can come up with is somewhere between a kilometre and a light-year?
 

The micro firkin (how do you type a Mu?) is even smaller. The mf is usually defined as 2/3 of bugger-all verging on zero and the Muf is naturally 1000 times smaller.
And the sea level hasn't even risen by a Muf.

When do you predict we are going to see something of a rise in the sea level? The GW mob are predicting anywhere between 3 and 20 feet by the end of the century - it's already well behind schedule.

I think if you work on 3mm/year you'll pretty much be on the money. There are other effects, many places that are whingeing about sea level rises are pumping out groundwater, dredging estuaries, and draining marshes. There is also plate tectonics to consider. Presumably Tuvaru is refunding their sea level alarmism funding. Fat chance.

It is one thing to be sceptical of a prevailing scientific view.

Good. Because these are the same people who told me last night that today would be dry with a mix of cloud and sun.  It has been wall to wall grey clouds all day.  If they can't predict the weather less than 24 hours ahead, why should anyone believe them when they try to predict years into the future?

 

There are always these 'scientific views' which often turn out to be based on extrapolating current trends.  I recall an incredibly gloomy seminar at work in the 1990s predicting a population  explosion in Kenya that would lead to starvation, disease and civil disorder.  It was based on extrapolation and by now, the population would have hit 100 million +.  In fact it is half that and population growth levelled off for various reasons which we needn't go into here.   Key thing was that the 'scientific view' turned out be unscientifically incorrect.

 

In another case, there was no census in Bolivia for decades but the experts (gue)estimated that the population would be growing at a certain rate.  Many things were done based on these guesses.  When they finally had a census in the early 1990s, they found there were something like 20% fewer Bolivians than had been assumed.  Making the country richer per capita, an important (if negative) factor when you are seeking development aid...

 

So scepticism rules, as far as I am concerned.  Scientists are just people and people are fallible.

Edited by BRG, 03 January 2019 - 16:43.

Don't confuse weather and climate. It really IS two different things.

And the sea level hasn't even risen by a Muf.

I did post a chart that shows about 0.3m rise since the industrial revolution. If that is less than a uf, the mf must be at least 0.3 x 1000 ie 300+m ie total inundation of most places.

Edited by gruntguru, 04 January 2019 - 08:42.

Crap. Even normally sane people who should know better (and I must include the gg in this group) have been so inundated by the overwhelming flood of propaganda from the GW mob that they are starting to believe something might be happening - but, by any practical standard, the Earth's climate is much the same as ever.

 

Perhaps you could post links to some "authority figures" to support that view? As you know I am more influenced by authority figures than the likes of Andrew Bolt, Malcolm Roberts or yourself. https://climate.nasa...ific-consensus/ (scroll down for a list of authority figures.)

 

Speaking of Andrew Bolt - remember he was sprouting that the temperature was not a trend, just a normal upswing and had turned down again? He spun that line for about 7 years - from 2006 to 2013 if I remember. https://climate.nasa...al-temperature/ Oh yes you can see it on the graph!

I think your words "I believe in AGM" are very significant. What you really mean is "I don't give a bugger if there is absolutely no sign of AGM happening - I am still going to fervently believe in the God of AGM".

 

No, what I really mean is this "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia." (IPCC)

In other words, I believe there is roughly a 5% chance that you are right and its all crap. Reading your posts I am sure you put the odds at 100% - something a scientist would never do. BTW, I don't think there are any reputable scientists who still think the climate is not changing (as you do). The only possible remaining point open to the slightest argument is "Is the current warming the result of human activity?"

Perhaps you could post links to some "authority figures" to support that view? As you know I am more influenced by authority figures than the likes of Andrew Bolt, Malcolm Roberts or yourself. https://climate.nasa...ific-consensus/ (scroll down for a list of authority figures.)
 
Speaking of Andrew Bolt - remember he was sprouting that the temperature was not a trend, just a normal upswing and had turned down again? He spun that line for about 7 years - from 2006 to 2013 if I remember. https://climate.nasa...al-temperature/ Oh yes you can see it on the graph!

Authority figure? Try Ian Plimer - Phd., Professor, Head of Department, Author etc. Geologists like Plimer (and me) seem to be generally the main group of academics (not that I am an academic) who generally are not believers in GW. I think the basic idea that we have seen it all before over hundreds of millions of years and the climate etc. always tends to be self correcting.

No, what I really mean is this "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia." (IPCC)
In other words, I believe there is roughly a 5% chance that you are right and its all crap. Reading your posts I am sure you put the odds at 100% - something a scientist would never do. BTW, I don't think there are any reputable scientists who still think the climate is not changing (as you do). The only possible remaining point open to the slightest argument is "Is the current warming the result of human activity?"

Please don't bother to quote the IPCC or any similar organisation in your arguments - the UN and its offshoots are totally corrupt. If I remember correctly the head of the IPCC is an Indian ex-bus driver whose climate science training was occasionally driving his bus in the rain.
The IPCC and the thousands of "Climate Institutions" that exist worldwide are for one purpose only - to receive grants and donations for their management and employees. As long as the keep turning out the GW crap they will continue to receive money. It is highly unlikely they would ever come out with anything ever vaguely resembling the truth - which of course is:
GW might be happening or it might not be happening. Also; - it may be doing harm or it may be beneficial. No one (especially not the bus driver from the IPCC) can improve on those two statements.

GW etc. is perhaps the ultimate form of Political Correctness. PC is the refuge of the person with possibly a weaker intellect and possibly lacking in self-confidence. As long as you agree with the prevailing PC attitudes (like GW) you feel safe as part of the crowd and nobody will laugh at you.

I think if you work on 3mm/year you'll pretty much be on the money. There are other effects, many places that are whingeing about sea level rises are pumping out groundwater, dredging estuaries, and draining marshes. There is also plate tectonics to consider. Presumably Tuvaru is refunding their sea level alarmism funding. Fat chance.

After reading up on how the sea level is measured - it does seem to be a pretty inexact science. There are just so many factors to take into account that I don't see how they could confidently arrive at a figure as small as 3mm. You can buy expensive (about $20,000) GPS gadgets that are remarkably accurate to a few cm horizontally and vertically - but 3mm? Surely not.

It isn't measured just over one year, as you say, 3mm would be impossible. They've been measuring it with tide gages for centuries, but that measures several things at once. The satellites are measuring what you or I might think of as sea level, since 1993. so the actual measurement is +82mm, roughly, over that time period. As it turns out that is not a 'pure' measurement either, but its a lot better than tide gages.

It isn't measured just over one year, as you say, 3mm would be impossible. They've been measuring it with tide gages for centuries, but that measures several things at once. The satellites are measuring what you or I might think of as sea level, since 1993. so the actual measurement is +82mm, roughly, over that time period. As it turns out that is not a 'pure' measurement either, but its a lot better than tide gages.

The more I think about it, the harder it seems to measure sea level changes. 

 

Firstly, the oceans are tidal so keep inconveniently going up and down.  Then atmospheric air pressure causes sea levels to fluctuate. So does the wind.  And then the dry land isn't static either - for instance, some parts of the world are still recovering from the last Ice Age, so for instance, Scotland is still rising as it recovers from the removal of the weight of the ice cap, causing the island of Great Britain to pivot, with the southern part therefore sinking slightly.  All matters of 1mm per 10 years or something, but enough to confuse the issue.  I believe the northern part of the Baltic Sea (the Gulf of Bothnia) is getting shallower for the same reason, and that water is going somewhere.

 

I suspect that measuring sea level is the definition of an inexact science!  But I am sure those clever guys at Aston Martin can find a solution.

If wasting money is a solution, then yes...

The clever guys aren't necessarily the ones who make the decisions...

Please don't bother to quote the IPCC or any similar organisation in your arguments - the UN and its offshoots are totally corrupt. If I remember correctly the head of the IPCC is an Indian ex-bus driver whose climate science training was occasionally driving his bus in the rain.
The IPCC and the thousands of "Climate Institutions" that exist worldwide are for one purpose only - to receive grants and donations for their management and employees. As long as the keep turning out the GW crap they will continue to receive money. It is highly unlikely they would ever come out with anything ever vaguely resembling the truth - which of course is:
GW might be happening or it might not be happening. Also; - it may be doing harm or it may be beneficial. No one (especially not the bus driver from the IPCC) can improve on those two statements.

 
Of course there are climate scientists working for governments that either don't accept, or don't want to hear about, global warming. Such as the US government under Trump (who pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and reduced or eliminated US regulations that help mitigate GW) or our own Government, who want to build or underwrite a coal fired power station to fill in a perceived gap in generating capacity and reduce power prices, though the evidence from the energy market operator is that there is no current shortfall, and certainly won't be by the time the coal plant is built, and evidence that a coal plant will actually increase power prices. These scientists pump out data to support GW even though their pay masters don't like that.
 
It is also interesting that the motives of scientists that support GW are questioned, but not often are the motives of scientists that don't agree with GW. The latter group are much smaller, and many of them are employed in sectors most affected by changes to regulations to mitigate GW - eg those in fossil fuel industries.
 
The link between CO2 and the warming/cooling of the planet is not as new as it is often suggested. The first papers on this were in the late 19th century, though I believe that the concern discussed in the paper was that the CO2 levels would drop and the planet would cool.

 

GW might be happening or it might not be happening. Also; - it may be doing harm or it may be beneficial. No one (especially not the bus driver from the IPCC) can improve on those two statements.

Years ago the problem was put to me this way:
If the scientists are wrong and we change things to mitigate the effects of GW then we will end up with cleaner air and, potentially, cheaper power.
If the scientists are right and we do nothing, we are totally screwed.

False dichotomy.

 

If we carry on as we are then we will have a richer population with more resources to adapt to whatever piffling rate of change in some fairly unimportant parameters in daily life, well within what mankind has seen in the past.

 

If we gut the economy in a fools errand to try and reduce CO2 then we won't affect anything much and will not have extra resources to deal with quotidienne weather related problems.

No need to gut the economy. Sensible carrot and stick measures would hasten the transition to renewables without costing anything (saving more likely).

Fine, if it saves money it'll happen anyway, no need for a carbon tax or any interference.

If only we could remove the existing interference. Too many ***** trumpeting the status quo and the evils of renewables, EV's, AV's etc. The electricity industry is in crisis courtesy of political gamesmanship and maladministered privatisations.

Well let me ask the obvious question. Poland has announced it will not be replacing the wind turbines it is currently dismantling. China and India are building coal fired generating stations. France is talking about reducing its excellent nuclear program (the only reason that Germany and Denmark can flaunt their wind powered green credentials). What evidence do you have a that a renewable energy economy is feasible, robust, and cheaper? As of 2017 the rate of building of renewables wasn't even keeping up with the increase in demand.

 

 

The Cosworth DFV is pretty scary as a structural element. A triangular plate is typically bolted to each magnesium cam cover at the front by three or four 5/16" UNC screws, and connected to the rear chassis bulkhead via a single screw.

 

I think that even if it looked scary the DFV front chassis mounts were pretty effective,. designed to hold together a non-downforce Lotus 49 with maybe 400kg of vertical load at the rear chassis bulkhead they were still safely holding together the last of the ground effects Williams etc with about 4g of downforce from the chassis mounted venturis so maybe 1800kg bending load.

 

The 5/16" UNC screws were of course designed purely to clamp the triangular plate to the heads because as we know " fasteners are not locating devices" (!) . The plates were thin to accommodate expansion growth in the engine and only functioned in their horizontal  plane. 

 

The single screw was much thicker as it was loaded in bending by a double shear mount in the chassis. That bit always puzzles me because there is no usually access to the captive nut so you can only secure the bolt by either lock wiring it externally which does seem always to be done or using Locktite. Just tightening it more won't work because it pulls the nut up against a bit of thin  gauge steel plate which will just bend.

The single screw was much thicker as it was loaded in bending by a double shear mount in the chassis. 

Due credit should be given to the two horizontal screws at the bottom of the engine, again taking shear loads. Nobody seems to talk about them!

 

If the design was originally calculated with a safety factor of three, the top and bottom screw design would still be OK with 4G downforce owing to improved material science and manufacturing. I'd be worried about point loading on the poor old rearmost bulkhead. I'd also be worried about the 1969 F1 rule change prohibiting hub mounted wings; had anyone considered wing loads potentially bending the car in different ways?

Well let me ask the obvious question. Poland has announced it will not be replacing the wind turbines it is currently dismantling. China and India are building coal fired generating stations. France is talking about reducing its excellent nuclear program (the only reason that Germany and Denmark can flaunt their wind powered green credentials). What evidence do you have a that a renewable energy economy is feasible, robust, and cheaper? As of 2017 the rate of building of renewables wasn't even keeping up with the increase in demand.

 

 

I don't have any evidence, but I am confident that sensible regulation/de-regulation of the generation industry in Australia would result in a more rapid transition from coal to renewables (and/or nuclear). None of the players will consider financing coal fired power and never have. Every utility-scale coal fired power station in Australia was financed by government.

 

The examples you cherry picked don't mean much in the big scheme (and don't really address my previous point anyway). China building coal fired power stations is an overused cliche. There was no way they could increase their energy use six-fold in since 2000 without building a lot of coal power. Lets not bother with the fact that China is expanding renewable generation faster than anywhere else in the world.

 

Cute. Worldwide the forecast is for increased consumption of all fossil fuels except coal, which flatlines, as in China. As I said, As of 2017 2040 the rate of building of renewables wasn't even keeping up with the increase in demand.

 

Interesting discussion about the connection points of the DFV.

 

If I understand right, the front chassis connection, the one behind the fuel tank bulkhead, comprises two horizontal screws (parallel to the longitudinal axis of the car) at the bottom and, through each triangular plate on both engine heads, one bolt on the chassis and four on the plate at engine side.

In torsional mode, they all work in shear. The engine heads’ plates, work mainly in axial force, one in tension, the other in compression (and some degree of local bending).

In global bending, spanning between the axles, the bottom two screws work in axial force, which is then fed into the aluminium alloy monocoque presumably through local stiffening or stiffeners (same principle at the top). The top bolts they still work in shear also in bending, while the plates work in axial force, compression when sagging (bump, I suppose), tension when hogging (rebound).

If I understand right, the front chassis connection, the one behind the fuel tank bulkhead...

I think your understanding is right although there are going to be loads that we haven't yet discussed. However it is wrong to talk about "fuel tank bulkhead" which is something that only existed after Lotus requested a rule change (Lotus 78) to permit use of a large tank behind the driver. For much of the DFV era, fuel tanks were mounted by the driver's side. Both fuel tank locations make design of the rearmost bulkhead difficult, with regard to fitting flexible bags and triangulation of the engine load points.

 

Photos of cars in period show the triangular top plates secured by three or four screws. Other photos show engines with and without cam cover rear flanges (i.e. potential rear suspension pickup points). Does anyone have a parts catalogue or similar for the DFV?

 

Why use a stressed engine? I'm still reading the story linked below about the rebuild of a BRM P160 which uses triangular structures hanging off the rearmost bulkhead.

 

http://brmp160e10.bl...ne-removed.html

 

The chassis load considerations are similar to those for the DFV.

 

Some of the first monocoque F1 chassises mounted the engine on cantilever beams (extensions of the primary beams and bulkheads). That would be tricky for a car relying on under floor downforce but given the other weird factors in hypercar design, it's always a possibility.

I was summarizing for the sake to get the basics, of course there are a number of other loads, and particularly combinations of loadings occurring at the same time.

 

I was referring to the last iteration, the one for wing cars. However, wing car or not, I think the DFV always had the same four connection points. 

I suppose an issue might have been the difference in torsional stiffness between a wide chassis with two relatively big torsion boxes either side of the cockpit and the narrow (60cm max) DFV immediately behind.

Would be interesting to know the torsional stiffness of the engine itself, and how it compared with the chassis it was attached. The 79 or the first FW07 had very low side walls and can't imagine they were particularly stiff, Head stiffened the subsequent versions of the FW07. However, open sections per se are inherently not stiff in torsion, so there must have been some small boxing on both sides of the driver, and when they increased the height of the chassis sidewalls at the cockpit, they must have stiffened the top edge, solving out the torsion through some degree of differential bending to stiffen it.

 

I wasn't aware Lotus required a rule change for the 78, IIRC at the time it seemed a progress wrt fire safety etc, so not an issue.

 

The Ferrari B1 had cantilever beams supporting the 312B beneath, although the bottom mounts were attached on the bulkhead behind the driver.

Actually the 78 had the fuel tanks in the pontoons, it's coming back to mind now.

Why use a stressed engine?

 

I can't open that BRM page at work, but about the question above I thought it was always about to have elements of car performing multiple functions, rather than separate systems doing just one function each, to reduce weight and size, improve packaging.

 

In a word - efficiency.

I suppose an issue might have been the difference in torsional stiffness between a wide chassis with two relatively big torsion boxes either side of the cockpit and the narrow (60cm max) DFV immediately behind.

 

Would be interesting to know the torsional stiffness of the engine itself, and how it compared with the chassis it was attached. The 79 or the first FW07 had very low side walls and can't imagine they were particularly stiff, Head stiffened the subsequent versions of the FW07. However, open sections per se are inherently not stiff in torsion, so there must have been some small boxing on both sides of the driver, and when they increased the height of the chassis sidewalls at the cockpit, they must have stiffened the top edge, solving out the torsion through some degree of differential bending to stiffen it.

 

I wasn't aware Lotus required a rule change for the 78, IIRC at the time it seemed a progress wrt fire safety etc, so not an issue.

 

The Ferrari B1 had cantilever beams supporting the 312B beneath, although the bottom mounts were attached on the bulkhead behind the driver.

We are all summarising, Regazzoni. 

 

The Williams FW07 used aluminium honeycomb sheets -- cut, folded and glued. It was the most expensive chassis on the grid at the time. It was a bath tub design which -- as you observed -- was easy to improve.

 

The Lotus 79 and FW07 are both canoe designs, long and thin. The FW07 was stiffer in torsion than other Lotus 79 copies, and the first design had potential for improvement.

 

Torsional stiffness of engine? How did the triangular plates and lower bolts secure the back end -- without imposing loads on the engine? Via the cam covers at the top end?

 

IIRC, the Lotus 78 required a bigger fuel tank -- the one behind the driver -- than rules allowed. The Lotus 78 ran with a rear fuel cell and side tanks. The Lotus 79 would have been the first F1 car with a single fuel cell behind the driver. It seems a sensible design change now, but nobody considered it at the time until Colin Chapman asked for a dispensation to package his wing car.

Without imposing loads on the engine?

 

I thought the engine structure (block etc) transferred - part of - the load to the back end. I presume Duckworth designed it also to that end, to a certain extent. It was usually helped by two almost parallel (depending of suspension geometry) generous struts going from the chassis back edges to the rear uprights.

 

And in an open section - non-boxed - made with sandwich panels, they don't increase significantly the torsional stiffness. It needs something else.

I thought the engine structure (block etc) transferred - part of - the load to the back end.

I should have thought and written more clearly. Chassis and engine elements can absorb loads (force and energy sinks) but they usually transfer them. Of course, the engine also transfers force and energy to the front end. 

 

And in an open section - non-boxed - made with sandwich panels, they don't increase significantly the torsional stiffness. It needs something else.

Williams worked out that you had to attach the downforce elements rigidly to a rigid-ish chassis.

---

Bugatti and Lancia cars of the 1920s and 1930s had the engine bolted to a ladder chassis. What makes that different from the "stressed engine" concept?

I was enjoying the debate. I don't need to win arguments. I debate to learn.

I was enjoying the debate. I don't need to win arguments. I debate to learn.

https://en.wikipedia...Tyrrell_008.jpg

Surely these are not the triangular mounting plates you are referring to?

https://www.youtube....h?v=SH2nDhBJrNI

 

Some interesting stuff in this along with the expected wank. For example the issues of license plates and high level stop lamps are explained.

 

One thing I noticed - still shots of this car do not do it justice. There are a couple of video walk-arounds and - the Valkyrie has quite a presence.

Edited by gruntguru, 28 January 2019 - 08:42.

You accuse me of being a "Climate Sceptic/Climate Extremist"?? Well of course I bloody am! This hardly a bloody insult - try "Closet Warmist" or something similar.

 

Why would you be a sceptic?  I suggest to watch this well-researched scientifically sound video:

 

 

The evidence is quite clear:  a recorded extremely steep increase of 0.8 deg C over just 100 years (coinciding with the large scale release of stored CO2 from fossil fuels by humans owing to the industrial revolution), while it is currently meant to be an icehouse earth.

 

If this continues for just 1000 years, the 8 deg C swing would be enough to melt all the ice at the poles, and swing the earth to a greenhouse earth stage (all while we are meant to be in a icehouse earth stage for another 50,000 years or so!).

 

 

It's been about 30 years since all this crap about CO2/AGM started. Weren't the sea levels supposed to rise to alarming levels - drowning much of the population? Surely there should be some sign of a rise after 30 years.

 

Please provide your sources in credible academic journals like Nature that support this? E.g., credible modelling that suggests there will be no rise in global sea levels over the next 1000 years? 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 February 2019 - 03:23.

The more I think about it, the harder it seems to measure sea level changes. 

 

Lol.

 

The change IF all the ice at the poles melt, will be so obvious that anyone in the year 3000 will be able to notice it. 

 

This is the trouble with thinking only at decades, rather than at the scale of geologic time.

 

For instance, on the scale of 30 years one might mistakenly believe that continents don't move.  However (of course), at the scale of geologic time continents must certainly do move and this is very, very significant.

 

 

All matters of 1mm per 10 years or something, 

 

It's important to stop thinking of 10 years and start thinking of 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years...

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 February 2019 - 03:22.

Greenland is called Greenland because when the Norsemen went there is was much, much warmer, it ain't no more.

 

Get over it, it, It happens and there ain't one damn thing anyone can do about it, it called nature.

Get over it, it, It happens and there ain't one damn thing anyone can do about it, it called nature.

 

The Earth couldn't care less.  It's the humans and other current species which may be in a pickle. 

 

Other species will take over, species better evolved to suit the new climate and (therefore) the new distribution of habitat. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 16 February 2019 - 04:54.

Sea level rise is about 3mm per year and doesn't seem to be accelerating. This has been going on since long before Mr Watt got busy with steam kettles. If you can't cope with 1 ft per century then I'm sure there are some mediaeval Dutchmen who could give you a clue. AGW probably does have a slight effect on SL rise but it doesn't seem to have shown up yet. Data quality is not exactly good, and easily confounded by land sinking due to plate tectonics, groundwater extraction, marsh draining, and other usage changes.

 

It's important to stop thinking of 10 years and start thinking of 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years...

I agree.  If only the climatologists, who have records extending back as much as 100 years, on which they exercise the good old art of extrapolation, understood this.  We are still coming out of the last Ice Age so of course it is getting warmer.  Nothing much to do with the piddling activities of one species. 

Incidentally during the last interglacial sea levels maxed out higher than today by a few metres. The average sea level rise since the last ice age is 7mm per year, ie about twice the current rate, but is heavily affected by meltwater surges. The recent acceleration to 3mm/year from almost 0 started in about 1860 so far as we can tell, but that may come back to data quality.

Edited by Greg Locock, 16 February 2019 - 22:38.