624 replies to this topic

[McGuire]

Bob Riebe, on Jul 25 2009, 02:19, said:

That is not true.
The original Dodge engine used, this was before NASCAR started trying to force, in a back-assward manner, the makes to use somewhat similar engines, had larger bore spacing than either the Ford or Chevy, so Dodge could use a larger bore that either of the others if it so chose.
NASCAR banned, the "stock" based block forcing Dodge to use something that never saw light of day under the hood of a passenger car.
This was some years back but if I remember correctly this happened not too long after the Mopar sprint car engine was designed so some ideas used in the sprint engine were used in the new "stock car" engine.

Well, that's more the Mopar version of the story, and as usual there is a little more to it than that. Shall we dive into all that?

Short version: The Chrysler NASCAR blocks versions R3 through R5 used 4.46 inch bore centers, like the old production LA engine, but a six-bolt head fastener pattern (vs. four) and a 48 degree lifter angle (vs. 59). Additionally, the Cup version (flat tappet, trucks allow rollers) used a 60mm cam bore so in no way is it really an LA block. So Dodge was perfectly within the box on bore centers (4.500 max) but they used a wet deck and siamesed liners to obtain a max bore of 4.250 inches. The bore diameter, not the bore centers, is what NASCAR had a problem with for Cup. NASCAR said you can use that block, but with a max bore of 4.185 inches just like everyone else.

Dodge cried foul, saying this made their blocks too heavy. Which is a stretch as I see it-- their 4.46 bore spacing was only .060 more than the Chevy SB2 and less than all the parameter list engines at 4.500. To me, the reason their block is too heavy is their block is too heavy -- as you say, they built it off the tools for the aluminum A8 sprint car engine and in cast iron it's thick as a brick. The new Dodge R6/P8 engine (ran first time at Charlotte last Oct in Kurt Busch's car) is a parameter engine with 4.500 bore spacing and still weighs 80 lbs less than the R5... and is also an inch shorter in length, with larger bore centers. ( ! ) And it's in cast iron, not CGI, due to budget constraints I presume.

[McGuire]

Bob Riebe, on Jul 25 2009, 01:19, said:

As has been said, all the "high tech" ideas are really just re-runs of very old ideas. There is nothing new or high tech. about a blower of any sort. The same can be said for valve layout.
I personally find what some old hot-rodders are now doing with very old engines at Bonneville far more interesting and techonlogically advancing that anything in F-1.
I have no love for diesels but the diesels used in the ACO are closer to new tech. than F-1.

I don't know about advances, essentially we keep on inventing the wheel, but in terms of creativity and imagination I agree 110 percent. In bigtime pro racing the technical challenges are as tough as they ever were, just as GrpB eloquently noted... it's just that the work has become so subtle that it's difficult for enthusiasts to follow it from middle distance. If we want to see the wild, imaginative, off-the-wall stuff, we need to look to club and sportsman racing, street enthusiasts and hot rodding, and all the fringe motorsports from D/SR to chain saw racing. In other words, everywhere the big money has not yet seeped in and people can still afford to dick around just for the fun of it. But where the big money starts to come in look out, individuality is rubbed out. Investments must be protected, so there is no $$$ for experimentation, especially if it works because then everyone's investment is down the drain. Pro racing is a business, the engineering exercise and sporting aspect are almost gone. That's just the way it is and I don't see any way to reverse it... I guess we'll just have to get our jollies where we can. Personally, I am hoping for some of the alternative-energy forms of racing to take off. That would be neat.

[J. Edlund]

GrpB, on Jul 24 2009, 18:25, said:

This goes to the heart of the question. Mr. Nowland's 50+ year motorsports career may include involvment in historic, "old school" projects (glorious successes), but the only difference between his new projects and his old projects is not "technology", it is the tools and materials he has at his disposal to achieve the desired targets. The engineers job is to bump up against the limits of physics, constrained by budget, materials and time. Whether that engineer is working on an F1 engine or NASCAR engine is only relevant in so far as it changes the box in which he has to play.

FEA, CFD, ICE, CAD, Rapid Prototyping, etc. all of the tools that the engineers on either side use are the same. And again, materials are constrained only by the rules or budget, not by for example the suppliers of valve steels who would only sell to F1, or the foundries that can cast CGI blocks that would refuse any other work besides NASCAR blocks. Motorsport engineers the world over use the same tools and have access to the same materials, that their uses are different speaks more to budget, rules and timing than any predisposition on the part of one group of engineers in one series as compared to another. A motorsport conference seminar on the newest analysis package from Ricardo or whoever is not solely populated by F1 engineers in labcoats while the Nascar engineers hang out at the free bar drinking Budweiser and scratching their bellies...

To conjecture a swap of the engineering development teams between NASCAR and F1, and who would do better, is like Fantasy Footbal or anything else that does not include the team dynamic and attitude that is the critical driving force behind any engineering development. Is their pay the same? Is travel the same? Is the scope of the job the same? Doing the calculations and development are relatively straightforward between the two, an engine is an engine is an engine. Are crankshafts, connecting rods, poppet valves etc. so really different that the F1 engineer would look at, say, a NASCAR crank and wonder if perhaps it is a suspension component? Is the question whether NASCAR physics is different from F1 physics???

The biggest difference between NASCAR and F1 on the engine side is, or at least was back when F1 engine development wasn't freezed, the number of people working with engine development. In NASCAR a handful of engineers could do the job while in F1 you needed 100 engineers to design a competitive engine, and about as many in the workforce producing the engines, and that was to supply only two cars with engines.

If we look at it from a technology standpoint, a NASCAR crankshaft for example is not that different from a F1 crankshaft. You need about the same tools, processes and materials to design and produce such a component for any of the racing series. Infact, the biggest difference between a crankshaft made for F1 rather than NASCAR these days tend to be the separate bolted heavy metal counterweights used on the F1 cranks (aside from the flat vs. cross plane design) which I'm sure NASCAR engine builders would consider too given enough funding (if it isn't prohibited by the regulations).

If you gave the F1 and NASCAR engineering teams the job to produce an engine for the opposite racing series I would expect the F1 team to do a better job, but that's just because they usually have more resources. If a major car manufacturer put all it's resources into producing a racing engine I'm sure they would do a better job than what any race engine builder can do no matter how competent, big resources and budgets are hard to compete with.

[gruntguru]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 21:21, said:

This is the current Chevrolet R07 NASCAR engine. (R07 = Racing, '07. There were also R99 and R05 engines, never raced.) It shares not one dimension, feature, or component with any production GM engine past or present.

You know far more about these engines than I do, but even with my limited knowledge, I can name several features in common
- 8 cyl
- 90 deg vee
- Shallow skirted block
- single low camshaft
- pushrod OHV
- 2 valves/cylinder
- carburettor

The last 5 items on this list are features you would never incorporate in a modern clean-sheet race engine design. They are there because the rules mandate them. They are features that carry over from the SB V8 production engines that were originally used in Nascar racing.

[gruntguru]

Bob Riebe, on Jul 25 2009, 03:45, said:

Here is what happens when a lawn mower engine company decides to go racing.

Funny situation. I wonder if the rule makers had this in mind when they specified the Briggs and Scrap Iron for junior dragster? (Anyone interested in World Series turd-polishing?) I imagine the original intent was a low cost, low output engine for the category although I admit the only successful way to keep power and costs down are the much loved "engine claim" type rules.

[McGuire]

gruntguru, on Jul 25 2009, 12:35, said:

You know far more about these engines than I do, but even with my limited knowledge, I can name several features in common
- 8 cyl
- 90 deg vee
- Shallow skirted block
- single low camshaft
- pushrod OHV
- 2 valves/cylinder
- carburettor

The last 5 items on this list are features you would never incorporate in a modern clean-sheet race engine design. They are there because the rules mandate them. They are features that carry over from the SB V8 production engines that were originally used in Nascar racing.

And your point is... ?

I suppose the presumption is that racing engines aid humankind in evolving to a higher plane. Nope, we aren't curing cancer or putting a man on mars here. It's a game. In F1 the game is 32V DOHC V8; in NASCAR the game is 16V CIB V8, and so on. But they are both games.

NASCAR requires carburetors to absolutely keep electronic driver aids out of the cars. Years ago, the determination was made that in this aspect at least, the game would be a driving competition rather than an engineering competition. Every other series has struggled with which aids to permit, which to prohibit, enforcement against all odds, etc. In NASCAR the philosophy is none, not ever.

[Tony Matthews]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 23:15, said:

I don't know about advances, essentially we keep on inventing the wheel, but in terms of creativity and imagination I agree 110 percent. In bigtime pro racing the technical challenges are as tough as they ever were, just as GrpB eloquently noted... it's just that the work has become so subtle that it's difficult for enthusiasts to follow it from middle distance. If we want to see the wild, imaginative, off-the-wall stuff, we need to look to club and sportsman racing, street enthusiasts and hot rodding, and all the fringe motorsports from D/SR to chain saw racing. In other words, everywhere the big money has not yet seeped in and people can still afford to dick around just for the fun of it. But where the big money starts to come in look out, individuality is rubbed out. Investments must be protected, so there is no $$$ for experimentation, especially if it works because then everyone's investment is down the drain. Pro racing is a business, the engineering exercise and sporting aspect are almost gone. That's just the way it is and I don't see any way to reverse it... I guess we'll just have to get our jollies where we can. Personally, I am hoping for some of the alternative-energy forms of racing to take off. That would be neat.

I would use the word 'eloquent' to describe that contribution if it hadn't been used to describe an earlier post, so succinct will have to do. It perfectly sums up how I see current top-end motor sport. When it comes to motive power I think that if I cease to be deeply emotionally moved by the thunder of a big CanAm-type motor or the scream of a high-revving F1 motor it will be a sure sign that I have departed this mortal coil. My desktop has a short cut to the sound of a BRM V16 on some unknown - to me - circuit.

The last F1 engine that I was able to look at in detail was the 2000 Ferrari 049 V10, a privilege and a fascinating experience, but nothing I saw would have fazed any automotive engineer from the early 20th Century, probably only the pneumatic valve 'springs' causing a smile and a nod. When it all boils down to refining material specifications within tight rules, CADCAM, meticulous machining and assembly, and modern lubricants it is sometimes difficult to be excited.

[ferruccio]

Tony Matthews, on Jul 25 2009, 11:33, said:

I would use the word 'eloquent' to describe that contribution if it hadn't been used to describe an earlier post, so succinct will have to do. It perfectly sums up how I see current top-end motor sport. When it comes to motive power I think that if I cease to be deeply emotionally moved by the thunder of a big CanAm-type motor or the scream of a high-revving F1 motor it will be a sure sign that I have departed this mortal coil. My desktop has a short cut to the sound of a BRM V16 on some unknown - to me - circuit.

The last F1 engine that I was able to look at in detail was the 2000 Ferrari 049 V10, a privilege and a fascinating experience, but nothing I saw would have fazed any automotive engineer from the early 20th Century, probably only the pneumatic valve 'springs' causing a smile and a nod. When it all boils down to refining material specifications within tight rules, CADCAM, meticulous machining and assembly, and modern lubricants it is sometimes difficult to be excited.

*sigh* F1 used to excite me because of the engineering development especially with engines. Now they have halted that. Everything including the engine is designed to maximize aero. And even this is now heavily restrained. CG for the engine now locked by regs.

Pneumatic valve springs are now old tech. It's just a necessity because the engine development went towards higher rpm for more power. Gearbox packaging and development was interesting few years ago. It's incredible how light and compact they are. Not sure what I should be excited with these days. Packaging is till interesting to look at I guess. Red Bull used their creativity and resorted to pullrod rear suspension. Quite interesting. Unfortunately that created a problem when they wanted to switch to double deck diffuser.

I guess thats where all the brains are focusing on and where the excitement lies. Packaging for aero. Not the engine anymore.

[Wuzak]

What, if any, features of an engine would make it more advanced than another one?

[GrpB]

McGuire, on Jul 24 2009, 23:15, said:

If we want to see the wild, imaginative, off-the-wall stuff, we need to look to club and sportsman racing, street enthusiasts and hot rodding, and all the fringe motorsports from D/SR to chain saw racing. In other words, everywhere the big money has not yet seeped in and people can still afford to dick around just for the fun of it.

Yes, this is the unfortunate truth. Off road and motorcycles as well (anywhere traction is limited mechanically). Engineering is about practical and creative implementation, and because there is really no such thing as a "clean sheet" design (that would require erasing all your memories, experience, texts and data and starting from first principles without any preconcevied bias), there is often little chance of determining the actual vs. perceived value of specific and unusual features through comparative data taking. As a result "engineering" fads and trends have a much better chance of survival and propogation, resulting in near universal implementation, where there are big budgets, big teams and corporate "conservatism" involved as compared to grassroots stuff where one or few people in the shop can make quick decisions and run with new and interesting ideas unfettered by the inertia of a large team. This is true for production vehicles more so, but certainly the cause and result are the same for motorsports.

But this is the age old David and Goliath comparison; David can move fast and quickly, exploiting advantages through intuition and canniness, but lacks the sheer strength and size of Goliath. The best teams are the ones that combine the ability to be creative and forward thinking while still bringing their huge resources to bear in a timely way. But this is more a management question, and is much harder to achieve than bending the laws of physics...

[Tony Matthews]

ferruccio, on Jul 25 2009, 11:54, said:

Pneumatic valve springs are now old tech. It's just a necessity because the engine development went towards higher rpm for more power.

I think it was a Japanese-developed steel alloy for valve springs that enabled a substantial increase in engine revs in ChampCar Racing, at least F1 was allowed - then - to adopt the pneumatic springs.

[cheapracer]

Wuzak, on Jul 25 2009, 21:57, said:

What, if any, features of an engine would make it more advanced than another one?

Virtually none bringing cost into account IMO.

You could compare 1 model engine to itself though, what advancements have been made to it over the years to improve power, economy and emissions without actually increasing manufacturing cost or adding parts - camshaft profile, port shape, combustion chamber shape, wingdage etc.

Tony Matthews, on Jul 25 2009, 22:41, said:

I think it was a Japanese-developed steel alloy for valve springs that enabled a substantial increase in engine revs in ChampCar Racing, at least F1 was allowed - then - to adopt the pneumatic springs.

Are you suggesting that F1 did that to keep a clear tech distance over the Hillbillys?

Edited by cheapracer, 25 July 2009 - 16:55.

[McGuire]

Wuzak, on Jul 25 2009, 22:57, said:

What, if any, features of an engine would make it more advanced than another one?

Great question. First we need a useful definition of "advanced."

A true advance is something that is typically not allowed in racing anymore even when it happens -- which even in historical terms has been relatively rarely. Race cars are generally conservative in design, especially the most successful ones. It is said that Enzo Ferrari never produced a true innovation in his career. When we examine the most unusual and creative race car designs over the years, the great majority of them were flops or duds. With a few exceptions, the cars that win championships are those built to the absolute state of the art and not one step further.

I believe that in my lifetime, the Ford GT program represents the most comprehensive application of technology to motorsports in its period -- maximum effort, literally no budget. Yet the cars did not really move the ball forward in any particular way; they were wonders of execution. The Ford GT advanced the state of the art in its methodology. The GT Mk IV in particular was a meticulously engineered sledgehammer. The engine architecture was a truck design and the wiper motor came from a Boeing jetliner. If you compare the Ford GTs to their chief rival, the Ferraris, the Ford represents science and the Ferrari represents art -- in everything, from their chassis engineering to their exterior styling. Look at photos of both cars today and it will jump off the page at you.

Those of us who have been watching from the '60s until now have been fortunate, I think. We saw the golden age. We saw technology revolutionize the sport and then eventually destroy it -- or at least run it into the dead end in which it finds itself today.

[cheapracer]

McGuire, on Jul 26 2009, 02:04, said:

It is said that Enzo Ferrari never produced a true innovation in his career.

OT - I'll take this one, just for fun mind you.

I go for the Comprex supercharger at least tried in practice by Ferrari at one race around '81 if not raced.

I remember it well cause I looked for ages for info trying to understand how it worked and why it wasn't used since it was faster (not like todays internet).

http://www.modified....rger/index.html

[Tony Matthews]

cheapracer, on Jul 25 2009, 17:52, said:

Are you suggesting that F1 did that to keep a clear tech distance over the Hillbillys?

More a case of innovation, although not earth-shattering, being allowed at that time, whereas the aim in ChampCar was, as in F1 now, to keep the costs down. When you consider the restrictions put on the ChampCar engine designers I think they did an amazing job. Dunno what the real Tony Matthews thinks...

[cheapracer]

Tony Matthews, on Jul 26 2009, 02:48, said:

More a case of innovation, although not earth-shattering, being allowed at that time, whereas the aim in ChampCar was, as in F1 now, to keep the costs down. When you consider the restrictions put on the ChampCar engine designers I think they did an amazing job. Dunno what the real Tony Matthews thinks...

I thought you may have been alluding that F1 upped it's game as Champ Car closed up.

Does the real Tony M think, I thought he only drew conclusions and UFO's

[Tony Matthews]

cheapracer, on Jul 25 2009, 19:56, said:

I thought you may have been alluding that F1 upped it's game as Champ Car closed up.

Not at all Cheapy, I was a great enthusiast for Champcar engineering and racing in its heyday, some of the best racing ever in my opinion, and for F1 at its best, whenever that was...

Quote

Does the real Tony M think, I thought he only drew conclusions and UFO's

For more UFO illustrations see Here. If you can't see them, they're cloaked.

Edited by Tony Matthews, 25 July 2009 - 19:20.

[Bob Riebe]

gruntguru, on Jul 25 2009, 11:05, said:

Funny situation. I wonder if the rule makers had this in mind when they specified the Briggs and Scrap Iron for junior dragster? (Anyone interested in World Series turd-polishing?) I imagine the original intent was a low cost, low output engine for the category although I admit the only successful way to keep power and costs down are the much loved "engine claim" type rules.

What situation?
What is your point?

[gruntguru]

McGuire, on Jul 25 2009, 20:31, said:

In F1 the game is 32V DOHC V8

That is a very recent phenomenon and one which to which I am personally opposed. For most of it's history, GP engines were open slather - capacity limit only. The 32V DOHC V8 2.4L solution was near optimal at the time it was introduced (being a simple truncation of the 3L V10 which originally appeared under more liberal rules) but will not continue to be so as technology marches on and the distortion imposed by current rules continues. So for the moment - yes the F1/Nascar engine development game is similar- but it shouldn't be so and never was prior to the current situation.

And my point is - don't confuse development and design.

[gruntguru]

Bob Riebe, on Jul 26 2009, 06:27, said:

What situation?
What is your point?

The situation.
Start with an engine design totally inappropriate for racing. Throw all the parts away and replace them with re-designed high performance parts. Go racing. Maybe you don't share my sense of humour but to me - thats funny.

The point.
If you want a low cost, low performance category - start with a cheap, readily available powerplant with the right power output, and keep it stock. (engine claim rule is the only cheap reliable way to achieve that)

Don't get me wrong - the process of modifying engines (including B&S) fascinates me but I would prefer the challenge of starting with a B&S engine - if you know what I mean?

Imagine a Model T racing series with no rules. You push your Model T to the back of the shed and start building when the "performance kit" arrives:
- carbon fibre wheels and slicks
- 5 MW gas turbine engine
- fully skirted vacuum cleaner body
- etc etc

Edited by gruntguru, 26 July 2009 - 00:06.

[J. Edlund]

cheapracer, on Jul 25 2009, 20:36, said:

OT - I'll take this one, just for fun mind you.

I go for the Comprex supercharger at least tried in practice by Ferrari at one race around '81 if not raced.

I remember it well cause I looked for ages for info trying to understand how it worked and why it wasn't used since it was faster (not like todays internet).

http://www.modified....rger/index.html

The Comprex supercharger wasn't really a Ferrari invention, but was mainly developed by Brown Boveri (altough, they didn't invent it).

[gruntguru]

J. Edlund, on Jul 26 2009, 11:01, said:

It is said that Enzo Ferrari never produced a true innovation in his career.

The Comprex supercharger wasn't really a Ferrari invention, but was mainly developed by Brown Boveri (altough, they didn't invent it).

I don't know about Enzo's involvement or even the originality but I recall being impressed by two other innovations of the turbo era.

- anti lag (using combustion in the exhaust pre turbine)
- water injection incorporated into the fuel droplets. (each water droplet surrounded by fuel)

[Bill S]

Tony Matthews, on Jul 26 2009, 00:41, said:

I think it was a Japanese-developed steel alloy for valve springs that enabled a substantial increase in engine revs in ChampCar Racing, at least F1 was allowed - then - to adopt the pneumatic springs.

I agree - the Indycar (or whatever name they run under of late) engines can run to 16,000rpm on otherwise conventional coil springs. I find that pretty darn amazing.

[Wuzak]

cheapracer, on Jul 25 2009, 22:36, said:

OT - I'll take this one, just for fun mind you.

I go for the Comprex supercharger at least tried in practice by Ferrari at one race around '81 if not raced.

I remember it well cause I looked for ages for info trying to understand how it worked and why it wasn't used since it was faster (not like todays internet).

http://www.modified....rger/index.html

The comprex supercharger was discussed in Racecar Engineering some years back and they said, IIRC, that it kept throwing/breakng its drive belt.

[Wuzak]

I have always wondered if WW2 aero engines still rate highly as "advanced" engines.

Here is the Allion V1710 in section




Of course the Napier Sabre....

http://www.khulsey.c...pier_sabre.html

Then there was this thing



The Rolls Royce Crecy - 2 stroke sleeve valve direct injection petrol engine.

(Never flew because of the efforts of RR went mainly to the Merlin and Griffon, and to some extent the Vulture, and because it had problems with melting pistons.)

[ferruccio]

gruntguru, on Jul 25 2009, 23:41, said:

.. The 32V DOHC V8 2.4L solution was near optimal at the time it was introduced (being a simple truncation of the 3L V10 which originally appeared under more liberal rules)...

The current F1 V8 is not a 'simple truncation' of the V10. It may look like it from the exterior but it is not. The V8 is a completely different engine with different sets of problems and characteristics.

During V10 days we did see some attempt at innovation. The Renault RS21 til RS23 tried a 110deg bank angle V10 for better CG but they suffered vibration issues which limited revs and power so by R24 they ditched it. Still thats the sort of effort I'd like to see in F1.

[gruntguru]

Wuzak, on Jul 26 2009, 12:03, said:

I have always wondered if WW2 aero engines still rate highly as "advanced" engines.

Of course the Napier Sabre....

http://www.khulsey.c...pier_sabre.html

I have always been a fan of the Sabre, a masterpiece of innovation - H24, sleeve valve. I think its incredible that someone had the balls to give it the go-ahead and equally incredible that it succeeded. How much power would it have made if given the same development and evolution as the Merlin?

http://www.hawkertem...pietsabre51.jpg

[gruntguru]

ferruccio, on Jul 26 2009, 12:49, said:

The current F1 V8 is not a 'simple truncation' of the V10. It may look like it from the exterior but it is not. The V8 is a completely different engine with different sets of problems and characteristics.

Sorry - poor choice of words. My point was the 300cc/cylinder size and other dimensions critical to breathing were retained as a "near optimal" compromise of power and fuel efficiency.

Edited by gruntguru, 26 July 2009 - 04:11.

[Wuzak]

gruntguru, on Jul 26 2009, 07:10, said:

I have always been a fan of the Sabre, a masterpiece of innovation - H24, sleeve valve. I think its incredible that someone had the balls to give it the go-ahead and equally incredible that it succeeded. How much power would it have made if given the same development and evolution as the Merlin?

http://www.hawkertem...pietsabre51.jpg

The Sabre ahd quite a bit of development through its life, but it took some time to get it reliable.

The prototype engines were all hand made, so fitted together nicely and worked well. But the production engines had problems with the sleeves and their sealing, which took some time to fix and required the intervention of the British government in that it ordered Bristol to help with the sleeve problem. Napier was taken over by English Electric mid war too.

The Merlin also had its fair share of problems, but being an earlier engine most of the problems had been sorted or alleviated by the beginning of the war. Some additional upgrades happened during the war, such as two piece blocks and end to end lubrication.

By the end of 1943 Rolls Royce had Merlin running at 18psi boost (the maximum up to that time) for 100 hours continuously.

The Sabre was developed to upwards of 3500hp, as much as 4000hp, near wars end.

[gruntguru]

Wuzak, on Jul 26 2009, 14:18, said:

The Merlin also had its fair share of problems, but being an earlier engine most of the problems had been sorted or alleviated by the beginning of the war. Some additional upgrades happened during the war, such as two piece blocks and end to end lubrication.

By the end of 1943 Rolls Royce had Merlin running at 18psi boost (the maximum up to that time) for 100 hours continuously.

The Sabre was developed to upwards of 3500hp, as much as 4000hp, near wars end.

Of course the Merlin benefited through being an evolutionary development from earlier RR designs while the Sabre was revolutionary in many ways and naturally suffered from teething problems. Sabres ran at much lower boost and never had the benefit of 2 stage supercharging like the Merlin (and the genius of Stanley Hooker). 2 stage supercharging was proposed but never implemented - priorities I suppose, and the Sabre was already a very powerful engine - great shape for packaging in an airframe too.

[cheapracer]

J. Edlund, on Jul 26 2009, 09:01, said:

The Comprex supercharger wasn't really a Ferrari invention, but was mainly developed by Brown Boveri (altough, they didn't invent it).

The airfoil wasn't really a Lotus invention, but was mainly developed by the Wright Brothers (although they didn't invent it).

We have to go with innovation (not invention) 'as applied to F1' or almost literally there has never been an innovation in F1 with the exception of side skirts and only if you disclude street sweepers who have side skirts to keep pressure in not out.

[cheapracer]

Tony Matthews, on Jul 26 2009, 03:20, said:

For more UFO illustrations see Here. If you can't see them, they're cloaked.

damn, I still can't get to that site, I'm obviously not in the "loop".....

[Tony Matthews]

cheapracer, on Jul 26 2009, 11:29, said:

damn, I still can't get to that site, I'm obviously not in the "loop".....

OK, they are cloaked - curtesy of the lizards - and you are out of the loop! Satisfied? I'll have a word with them, see what I can do...

[Wuzak]

gruntguru, on Jul 26 2009, 12:47, said:

Of course the Merlin benefited through being an evolutionary development from earlier RR designs while the Sabre was revolutionary in many ways and naturally suffered from teething problems. Sabres ran at much lower boost and never had the benefit of 2 stage supercharging like the Merlin (and the genius of Stanley Hooker). 2 stage supercharging was proposed but never implemented - priorities I suppose, and the Sabre was already a very powerful engine - great shape for packaging in an airframe too.

Napier were working on two stage superchargers before they had sorted the basic engine.

The priority affoded the Sabre by the British government is demonstrated by the seconding of a pair of centreless grinders, originally destined for Pratt & Whitney, to grind the sleeves. P&W were not impressed.

For their part P&W designed and built their own 24 cylinder 'H' engines with sleeve valves. George Mead had seen the early prototype Sabres and was impressed. So he set about building one for P&W. The result was the X-1800 (2240cid initially then 2600cid) and the H-3130/3730. Each of these was larger and heavier than the Sabre but produced less power.

[McGuire]

gruntguru, on Jul 26 2009, 06:41, said:

That is a very recent phenomenon and one which to which I am personally opposed. For most of it's history, GP engines were open slather - capacity limit only. The 32V DOHC V8 2.4L solution was near optimal at the time it was introduced (being a simple truncation of the 3L V10 which originally appeared under more liberal rules) but will not continue to be so as technology marches on and the distortion imposed by current rules continues. So for the moment - yes the F1/Nascar engine development game is similar- but it shouldn't be so and never was prior to the current situation.

And my point is - don't confuse development and design.

Whether you are opposed is not relevant LOL. The world keeps turning w/wo your approval. Before the current V8 we had a decade of nothing but V10s. Actually, rulebook proscriptions are mere formalities due to the irresistable, irreversible process of technical convergance. No matter how you write the rules, within them will be contained the blueprint for the optimal combination. Given current technology and sufficient resources, that configuration will be rapidly identified and everyone arrives at the same design layout, differing only in detail. So as I said earlier, the basic design layout is determined by the game rules, whether the rulebook specifies it or not. From there you have incremental development work, very little basic design work. And spectators watching a bunch of cars going past that differ mainly in paint schemes.

This is not the old days when I4s, V8s, V12s etc were roughly competitive under the same formula. That only occurred due to the low relative level of expertise and its unbalanced distribution, so that a well-executed V8 like the Cosworth could beat a less well-executed V12, for example. That can't happen anymore. That era has passed. The only way to turn the clock back is to turn everyone stupid again and put the game back to square one -- say, with an alternative-energy formula.

[McGuire]

Wuzak, on Jul 26 2009, 10:03, said:

I have always wondered if WW2 aero engines still rate highly as "advanced" engines.

Highly advanced for their time, surely, but that was a long time ago. The signifying labels that come to mind today include big, fascinating, heroic. That was a real competition, not a game for oversized children like motor racing.

[scolbourne]

McGuire, on Jul 26 2009, 22:11, said:

Highly advanced for their time, surely, but that was a long time ago. The signifying labels that come to mind today include big, fascinating, heroic. That was a real competition, not a game for oversized children like motor racing.

Not quite true. Aircraft engine development has continued for racing at Reno. In the unlimited class they have taken the WW2 engines and then tuned them added superchargers, NO2 , methanol injection, and added higher spec components.
It is still not clear whether radial or inline engines are the way to go with the results alternating between the two. Speeds are above 500mph and power is around 3000hp.

The Pond Racer used two Nissan car engines running on methanol but suffered overheating problems.

The sports class is interesting with modern engines appearing in composite aircraft but limited in capacity and weight.

http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/

Its a pity we dont have an unlimited car race but I guess safety has to come first.

Edited by scolbourne, 26 July 2009 - 15:45.

[cheapracer]

scolbourne, on Jul 26 2009, 23:40, said:

Not quite true. Aircraft engine development has continued for racing at Reno. In the unlimited class they have taken the WW2 engines and then tuned them added superchargers, NO2 , methanol injection, and added higher spec components.

Whats your point? You see the Briggs and Stratton mentioned earlier, only $4000 for a $40 engine - what can't you do with a bottomless wallet?

[J. Edlund]

cheapracer, on Jul 26 2009, 12:22, said:

The airfoil wasn't really a Lotus invention, but was mainly developed by the Wright Brothers (although they didn't invent it).

We have to go with innovation (not invention) 'as applied to F1' or almost literally there has never been an innovation in F1 with the exception of side skirts and only if you disclude street sweepers who have side skirts to keep pressure in not out.

Not quite the same thing, or do you imply that Lotus put an airfoil on their car that was designed by the Wright Brothers? Perhaps even with technical assistance by the Wright Brothers themself?

The wave supercharger used by Ferrari was the Comprex unit from Brown Boveri. It was later used in passenger cars in a smaller scale.

McGuire, on Jul 26 2009, 14:03, said:

Whether you are opposed is not relevant LOL. The world keeps turning w/wo your approval. Before the current V8 we had a decade of nothing but V10s. Actually, rulebook proscriptions are mere formalities due to the irresistable, irreversible process of technical convergance. No matter how you write the rules, within them will be contained the blueprint for the optimal combination. Given current technology and sufficient resources, that configuration will be rapidly identified and everyone arrives at the same design layout, differing only in detail. So as I said earlier, the basic design layout is determined by the game rules, whether the rulebook specifies it or not. From there you have incremental development work, very little basic design work. And spectators watching a bunch of cars going past that differ mainly in paint schemes.

This is not the old days when I4s, V8s, V12s etc were roughly competitive under the same formula. That only occurred due to the low relative level of expertise and its unbalanced distribution, so that a well-executed V8 like the Cosworth could beat a less well-executed V12, for example. That can't happen anymore. That era has passed. The only way to turn the clock back is to turn everyone stupid again and put the game back to square one -- say, with an alternative-energy formula.

Each design, I4, V12 or whatever will have some advantages and disadvantages. Some of the engine configurations is likely to have less disadvantages and bigger advantages than the rest. Depending on the regulations the configuration with the biggest advantage will differ, but if these differences can be kept small different configurations can compete against each other. Yes, we had around a decade of nothing but V10's, but we should not forget that the V10 design was mandated for quite some time since a few engine manufacturers was investigating other options. To constantly investigate the different configurations in order to find an advantage over the competition is quite expensive, and I suppose that was the reason FIA mandated V10 engines and later V8 engines.

[DOF_power]

J. Edlund, on Jul 26 2009, 21:55, said:

Not quite the same thing, or do you imply that Lotus put an airfoil on their car that was designed by the Wright Brothers? Perhaps even with technical assistance by the Wright Brothers themself?

The wave supercharger used by Ferrari was the Comprex unit from Brown Boveri. It was later used in passenger cars in a smaller scale.



Each design, I4, V12 or whatever will have some advantages and disadvantages. Some of the engine configurations is likely to have less disadvantages and bigger advantages than the rest. Depending on the regulations the configuration with the biggest advantage will differ, but if these differences can be kept small different configurations can compete against each other. Yes, we had around a decade of nothing but V10's, but we should not forget that the V10 design was mandated for quite some time since a few engine manufacturers was investigating other options. To constantly investigate the different configurations in order to find an advantage over the competition is quite expensive, and I suppose that was the reason FIA mandated V10 engines and later V8 engines.

The V8 are more expensive and have less potential then the V10s.
The reason they where mandated were pure political (it was lobbied by one Ford/Jaguar/Cosworth man who's close to Mosley).
From what I've read FIA went so far as to blackmail some to accept the switch (BMW to be more precise, via the Euro NCAP).



Just one, why does cheapracer want a dumbed-down spec-crap (like) series out of Formula 1 ?!

[gruntguru]

McGuire, on Jul 26 2009, 22:03, said:

Whether you are opposed is not relevant LOL. The world keeps turning w/wo your approval. Before the current V8 we had a decade of nothing but V10s. Actually, rulebook proscriptions are mere formalities due to the irresistable, irreversible process of technical convergance. No matter how you write the rules, within them will be contained the blueprint for the optimal combination. Given current technology and sufficient resources, that configuration will be rapidly identified and everyone arrives at the same design layout, differing only in detail. So as I said earlier, the basic design layout is determined by the game rules, whether the rulebook specifies it or not. From there you have incremental development work, very little basic design work. And spectators watching a bunch of cars going past that differ mainly in paint schemes.

This is not the old days when I4s, V8s, V12s etc were roughly competitive under the same formula. That only occurred due to the low relative level of expertise and its unbalanced distribution, so that a well-executed V8 like the Cosworth could beat a less well-executed V12, for example. That can't happen anymore. That era has passed. The only way to turn the clock back is to turn everyone stupid again and put the game back to square one -- say, with an alternative-energy formula.

I think an energy based formula is the way to go. Not a complicated one, just a fuel restriction progressivelly tightened from year to year. (And yes I am sure the world will keep turning regardless of that opinion - or any of the other opinions expressed on this forum.)

To suggest that the optimal solution (for a displacement limited engine formula) has been even remotely approached is naive. For example there have been several innovations that were well advanced towards F1 implementation but squashed by rule changes - 2 stroke, sleeve valve, rotary valve to name a few. Other banned technologies have been raced and have proven road car application - variable valve timing, variable inlet geometry, direct injection etc. These are all design innovations as opposed to incremental development work.

There are plenty (the vast majority in fact) of formulae around with detailed engine specification allowing little more than incremental fiddling around the edges. F1 would be far more interesting from a technical standpoint, if the engine design was completely open. Imagine the technologies that might come into play if fuel allowed was severely restricted - hybrid transmissions, compounding plus all those mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Edited by gruntguru, 27 July 2009 - 00:29.

[DOF_power]

gruntguru, on Jul 27 2009, 03:21, said:

I think an energy based formula is the way to go. Not a complicated one, just a fuel restriction progressivelly tightened from year to year. (And yes I am sure the world will keep turning regardless of that opinion - or any of the other opinions expressed on this forum.)

To suggest that the optimal solution (for a displacement limited engine formula) has been even remotely approached is naive. For example there have been several innovations that were well advanced towards F1 implementation but squashed by rule changes - 2 stroke, sleeve valve, rotary valve to name a few. Other banned technologies have been raced and have proven road car application - variable valve timing, variable inlet geometry etc. These are all design innovations as opposed to incremental development work.

There are plenty (the vast majority in fact) of formulae around with detailed engine specification allowing little more than incremental fiddling around the edges. F1 would be far more interesting from a technical standpoint, if the engine design was completely open. Imagine the technologies that might come into play if fuel allowed was severely restricted - hybrid transmissions, compounding plus all those mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I'd wish they'd go fully electrical to be honest.

Edited by DOF_power, 27 July 2009 - 00:24.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Six wheels. Extra huge fan for suction.

Two awesome innovations. Both succeeded initially. First one was too different....second one was banned cos...?

[Wuzak]

OfficeLinebacker, on Jul 27 2009, 05:25, said:

Six wheels. Extra huge fan for suction.

Two awesome innovations. Both succeeded initially. First one was too different....second one was banned cos...?

The first was banned because was too fast. The second was banned because it was too fast (the Tyrrell six wheeler with 4 front wheels was scuppered because of lack of development of the tyres compared with the conventionally sized tyres, and the six wheel ban was directed at having 4 rear wheels which allowed for longer venturi tunnels and better traction, but there was also a ban on 4wd).

[cheapracer]

DOF_power, on Jul 27 2009, 05:58, said:

Just one, why does cheapracer want a dumbed-down spec-crap (like) series out of Formula 1 ?!

Don't know why your asking other people, may I answer it?

Where did I say I do? I am merely suggesting some cost saving parameters, F1 already has parameters.

A closer to square bore/stroke ratio engine of 4.0L and 5 speed gearbox will dramatically lower revs and the savings that go along with it. I would then give more liberal freedoms for other areas of the engine than whats in place now. This would also provide a better spectacle and driver control display.

OfficeLinebacker, on Jul 27 2009, 10:25, said:

Six wheels. Extra huge fan for suction.

Two awesome innovations. Both succeeded initially. First one was too different....second one was banned cos...?

Yeah besides the 4 wheel steered trucks that had been getting around for the previous 50 years and Lady Penelope driving at F1 speeds since 1965, sure it was an innovation. I was shocked they let 6 wheels onto the track at all, a blatant side step of the tyre size rule which only gives a certain contact patch area and 'normal cars' only have 4 wheels anyway. Note that Tyrell at that era were a pretty sound outfit and their 4 wheelers were winners too so there was more to it than simply 2 extra tyres making them winners. Interesting but glad they went.

The Fan car idea came from Can Am and Jim Hall in the 60's (as did wings of course). Too radical for F1 and also dangerous to other competitors throwing **** everywhere, not pleasant to be behind according to other drivers.

J.Edland, on Jul 27 2009, 08:22, said:

The wave supercharger used by Ferrari was the Comprex unit from Brown Boveri. It was later used in passenger cars in a smaller scale.

Thats absolutely correct, Ferrari was the first to do it unlike every other 'innovation' in F1 that can previously be seen on a road car or other race series etc.

The Comprex should be considered a close cousin of this with some mechanical addition
http://en.wikipedia....pansion_chamber
still very clever though.

DOF_power, on Jul 27 2009, 08:22, said:

I'd wish they'd go fully electrical to be honest.

Please play this link of how electric cars sound...

..Electric F1 car at revs..

Edited by cheapracer, 27 July 2009 - 07:46.

[Canuck]

cheapracer, on Jul 26 2009, 23:00, said:

I am merely suggesting some cost saving parameters, F1 already has parameters.

Isn't that a bit farcical though? As has been said numerous times by people that appear to be in the know here, you don't end up with a smaller budget - you end up with team-owned wind tunnels and a small city of team aero specialists. The money cat is out of the bag, and it ain't going back in.

[cheapracer]

Canuck, on Jul 27 2009, 13:43, said:

The money cat is out of the bag, and it ain't going back in.

Absolutely, but I believe I mentioned I would give more liberal freedoms in the other area's of the engine, I'm sure the money would be absorbed there by the teams that have it - well I'm sure thats what the sponsors would be told anyway.

Just saw this...

June 6, 2009, 8:15pm MST:
Canuck shouts IT'S A BOY!!!


CONGRATS !!

Edited by cheapracer, 27 July 2009 - 07:53.

[Henri Greuter]

Bob Riebe, on Jul 24 2009, 18:19, said:

That is not true.
The original Dodge engine used, this was before NASCAR started trying to force, in a back-assward manner, the makes to use somewhat similar engines, had larger bore spacing than either the Ford or Chevy, so Dodge could use a larger bore that either of the others if it so chose.
NASCAR banned, the "stock" based block forcing Dodge to use something that never saw light of day under the hood of a passenger car.
This was some years back but if I remember correctly this happened not too long after the Mopar sprint car engine was designed so some ideas used in the sprint engine were used in the new "stock car" engine.

Bob, McGuire and other experts on the (NASCAR) engine front,

Now first of all I must admit that NASCAR engines nowadays are no longer what I assumed the to be: stock derived. You've made me stand corrected.
So (for the time being) I'll swallow my pride, keep my mouth shut with sarcastic comments etc I generally save for `the Detroit pushrod" etc since they are no longer Detroit Pushrod anymore.
learned something from you for which my thanks. But that also raises questions: Can anynone of you fill me in on this as welll?

My, seriously intended question to all of you is: When did NASCAR drop the rule that the engined had to be derived from production engines and certain parts needing to be stock?
(I attended the 1996 Brickyard 400 and I remember that by that time the engines still were told to have parts derived from stock components)

Secondly, does this also mean that some of the NASCAR engines took over design principles and features as Mario Illien applied on the 265E Mercedes 500I.

Thanks in advance.


Henri

[OfficeLinebacker]

Henri Greuter, on Jul 27 2009, 07:40, said:

Bob, McGuire and other experts on the (NASCAR) engine front,

Now first of all I must admit that NASCAR engines nowadays are no longer what I assumed the to be: stock derived. You've made me stand corrected.
So (for the time being) I'll swallow my pride, keep my mouth shut with sarcastic comments etc I generally save for `the Detroit pushrod" etc since they are no longer Detroit Pushrod anymore.
learned something from you for which my thanks. But that also raises questions: Can anynone of you fill me in on this as welll?

My, seriously intended question to all of you is: When did NASCAR drop the rule that the engined had to be derived from production engines and certain parts needing to be stock?
(I attended the 1996 Brickyard 400 and I remember that by that time the engines still were told to have parts derived from stock components)

Secondly, does this also mean that some of the NASCAR engines took over design principles and features as Mario Illien applied on the 265E Mercedes 500I.

Thanks in advance.


Henri

I think there's an issue of semantics here. "Derived from" and "based on" and such words have a very broad range of interpretations. There are no stock components in a stock car any more. Zero.

[McGuire]

scolbourne, on Jul 26 2009, 23:40, said:

Not quite true. Aircraft engine development has continued for racing at Reno.

How does that make what I wrote "not quite true?" You have simply taken another tangent. Much as I admire them, there is nothing particularly advanced about these engines; mainly it's a boost derby. They're certainly not breaking any new ground. They can handle liquid-cooled engines pretty well, but have less capability with radials despite their greater potential.

In the great radial vs inline debate, history has spoken. After the war the radials continued on in commerical use while the big inline engines went away. The remaining large piston engines in commercial aviation (bush flying etc) are radials. The biggest inline engine around is the rare Lycoming O720 and it's air-cooled. The Shvetsov and Vedeneyev radials are still in production. There were radial-powered piston fighters in the Vietnam war; surprisingly effective. The big inline engines of WWII get lots of attention among enthusiasts to this day because car people can relate to them. The big WWII radials not so much, although they are also among the finest piston engines ever built.

Unlimited air racing is a prime example of what I described earlier as a fringe motorsport -- wealthy sportsmen having fun on their own nickel. The engines are spectacular, but their actual development proceeds at a relative snail's pace. If air racing ever became a commercially valuable sport again and the serious money arrived, soon it would become like every pro motorsport. I suppose first we might see turbines, just as with hydroplanes. But first someone with very deep pockets might come along with an all-new, purpose-built engine and nuke the field. It would be costly, but it wouldn't be particularly difficult. After all, the current engines are museum pieces.