26 replies to this topic

[RDV]

In REAL high tech motors, when people want to combine high horsepower, minimum weight and minimum maintenance in one package, they DON'T build piston engines. The equation only tilts in favor of piston engines when you throw in minimum COST.

In motorsports where rules don't artificially limit their choices, when people want to build a vehicle that combines maximum horsepower, minimum weight and minimum maintenance in one package, they DON'T select piston engines. Right now NASCAR is hyping their one motor per weekend rule. For a couple of years now, there are Unlimited hydroplane teams that have been running one motor per SEASON.

The very idea that CART is somehow a technical quantum leap over IRL is, to put it politely, at best extremely naive. (And are you only now catching on to the fact CART is a kitcar series?) If you think higher rpm represents higher technology, thirty-seven years ago a German team set a motorcycle class record of 130.35 mph at Bonneville with an engine turning over 15,000 rpm.

Does complexity make a racecar more high tech? If that's the case, current Top Fuel dragsters are hugely more high tech than hydrogen peroxide rocket dragsters ever were. Except Top Fuel cars are only, just now, equaling performances that were common with rocket cars thirty years ago. And rocket cars were doing it with a motor that lasted the lifetime of the vehicle, not just one run.

Does the use of complex electronics to control traction and engine rpm make a racecar high tech? Right now I have sitting in my garage a piston engine racecar in which it is physically impossible to over-rev the motor or spin the tires. The car uses no electronics whatsoever. So how do you not over-rev the motor or spin the tires without electronics? In my case, I did it by using a fixed pitch prop in the world's only propeller-driven racecar. Does that make CART or F1 cars high tech or merely complicated?

And, oh yeah, "turbocharging is an international anachronism in motor racing?" That's interesting! I wonder why it's so common in the newer, higher tech drag racing series such as Import racing or Pro 5.0? Maybe they abandoned it in Formula One because (A) horsepower numbers with more than three digits scare Europeans and (B) somebody was stupid to think normally aspirated engines -- the black hole of money pits -- would be cheaper to develop.

[Chevy II Nova]

I don't understand what you are getting at.

[RDV]

I don't understand what you are getting at.

Maybe this will make it clearer......

http://www.theracing.../docs/7017.html

[Chevy II Nova]

Franklin?!

[RDV]

Yup, and there was Mosley getting his knickers in a twist over traction control..... there is more if you google, most entertaining...

[McGuire]

Originally posted by RDV
Yup, and there was Mosley getting his knickers in a twist over traction control..... there is more if you google, most entertaining...

Franklin Ratliff is sort of Internet legend. If you can persuade him to post some photos of his VW-powered Propster here, all will become clear.

[Chevy II Nova]

This guy this in a world of alternative physics...

[Powersteer]

At first i thought you were baiting him with that post

[RDV]

At first i thought you were baiting him with that post

Would I do a thing like that....... shame on you!!

[Franklin]

Originally posted by Chevy II Nova
I don't understand what you are getting at.

I don't understand why RDV finds it necessary to take MY comments made on OTHER message boards and pass them off as his own.

The comment about hydrogen peroxide rocket cars running performances thirty years ago that Top Fuel cars are only now equalling? Mine.

The comment that getting horsepower out normally aspirated engines is "the black hole of money pits"? Mine.

Here's one RDV missed. The current dominant boat in Unlimited hydroplanes is powered by a PISTON ENGINE.

[Franklin]

Point to ponder: An 8,000 horsepower aircraft turbine is no where near as light as an 8,000 horsepower Top Fuel dragster engine, but can put out 8,000 horsepower for hours where as a Top Fuel motor can only do it for seconds. On the other hand, a hot gas generator powered rocket turbopump turbine capable of 8,000 horsepower is much lighter and more compact than either one. So which one is "more high tech"?

More facts to consider. At launch a Top Fuel dragster out of a 7,000 to 8,000 horsepower engine is developing a forward thrust of 12,000 to 13,000 pounds but that works out to only about 1.5 to 1.8 pounds of thrust per horsepower. My little VW-powered propster with its fixed pitch prop pitched for top speed not acceleration generates at least that much thrust per horsepower. A DC-3 prop generates a static thrust of about 3 lbs per horsepower. Small fast turning airboat props have attained as much as 4 lbs of thrust per horsepower.

[Franklin]

Originally posted by RDV
Yup, and there was Mosley getting his knickers in a twist over traction control..... there is more if you google, most entertaining...

What I found entertaining was the fact you were so I G N O R A N T of racing you didn't know supermodifieds were single seat open wheelers.

[Chevy II Nova]

Franklin, your "points" are about as logical as ricers who attempt to make up for their lack of horsepower with "hp/liter" arguments.

As for Nitro vs. Rockets, are you serious? Hydrogen peroxide rockets never had to deal with traction. Not to mention that they had no rules binding them. Top Fuel is heavily regulated and getting the power to the ground makes the comparison a step beyond apples and oranges.

[RDV]

I don't understand why RDV finds it necessary to take MY comments made on OTHER message boards and pass them off as his own.

M'luds I rest my case.
Not only we have a comprehension problem here when reading, I would also propose there is a fundamental failure of sense of humor.

[RDV]

What I found entertaining was the fact you were so I G N O R A N T of racing you didn't know supermodifieds were single seat open wheelers

Thank you for proving me wrong, yet again, You do have a sense of humor to be entertained. .

And we are making progress, we ARE using small copies of the previous posts , not the whole shebang , and then not addressing the main points, WELL done!!!

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Franklin
Point to ponder: An 8,000 horsepower aircraft turbine is no where near as light as an 8,000 horsepower Top Fuel dragster engine, but can put out 8,000 horsepower for hours where as a Top Fuel motor can only do it for seconds. On the other hand, a hot gas generator powered rocket turbopump turbine capable of 8,000 horsepower is much lighter and more compact than either one. So which one is "more high tech"?

You are waving around a red herring: namely, the concept of "high tech." That is a marketing buzzword, not an engineering term. The engineer's job is to direct the most suitable technology to the project at hand, not the "highest"...whatever that is.

Nowhere is this more true than in motorsports. Contrary to popular belief, race cars are based on highly conservative, close-to-the-bone development, one step at a time. Here, one year is considered long-range planning. Meanwhile, there are no race budgets in the world which can afford truly forward-looking items like basic materials research or non-specific engine development. That's not what racing is about.

For example, your comparison between piston engines and gas turbines is totally irrelevant to anyone building an NHRA Top Fuel car or an F1 car for that matter, since their rulebooks clearly state that the competition is for piston-engined vehicles only.

If you want to understand how race cars are developed within existing rules structures, do not study the history of invention, because there is precious little of that going on here. Study game theory. Race cars are not particularly advanced machines, even by automotive industry standards. The car you rent at the airport to go watch the F1 race is in many ways more advanced than any F1 car. Race cars are highly focused, single-purpose devices. One might even call them crude and simple. That's the beauty of them.

[Powersteer]

Timing is everything. Mister Ratliffs timing is an irony to me. CAT bb closes but why is he here? Why is he here when here became quiet for a while? And why such a character like Mister Ratliff at this time? because he has sparked the bb to life with death.....or life i am suspicious.

Franklins ratio, 16.86 posts per day a record?

[Franklin]

Originally posted by McGuire



You are waving around a red herring: namely, the concept of "high tech." That is a marketing buzzword, not an engineering term. The engineer's job is to direct the most suitable technology to the project at hand, not the "highest"...whatever that is.

Nowhere is this more true than in motorsports. Contrary to popular belief, race cars are based on highly conservative, close-to-the-bone development, one step at a time. Here, one year is considered long-range planning. Meanwhile, there are no race budgets in the world which can afford truly forward-looking items like basic materials research or non-specific engine development. That's not what racing is about.

For example, your comparison between piston engines and gas turbines is totally irrelevant to anyone building an NHRA Top Fuel car or an F1 car for that matter, since their rulebooks clearly state that the competition is for piston-engined vehicles only.

If you want to understand how race cars are developed within existing rules structures, do not study the history of invention, because there is precious little of that going on here. Study game theory. Race cars are not particularly advanced machines, even by automotive industry standards. The car you rent at the airport to go watch the F1 race is in many ways more advanced than any F1 car. Race cars are highly focused, single-purpose devices. One might even call them crude and simple. That's the beauty of them.

Yeah, yeah.

Tell it to the Lilliputians debating which end of the egg to open.

Oops, my mistake.

Tell it to the people debating whether it is CART, IRL, or F1 that's the most "high tech."

[RDV]

Tell it to the people debating whether it is CART, IRL, or F1 that's the most "high tech."

As IRL and CART are spec cars (kit cars as you call them), built to a market price , and F1 is on another level of investment, supported by manufacturers, I would not think the case arises.

Try finding other windmills to tilt at, Don franklin, this is a churlish answer.

Look up relevant in the dictionary, its just after "obfuscate" and just before "self-referential".

[_bigbadbob_]

Originally posted by McGuire



You are waving around a red herring: namely, the concept of "high tech." That is a marketing buzzword, not an engineering term. The engineer's job is to direct the most suitable technology to the project at hand, not the "highest"...whatever that is.

Nowhere is this more true than in motorsports. Contrary to popular belief, race cars are based on highly conservative, close-to-the-bone development, one step at a time. Here, one year is considered long-range planning. Meanwhile, there are no race budgets in the world which can afford truly forward-looking items like basic materials research or non-specific engine development. That's not what racing is about.

For example, your comparison between piston engines and gas turbines is totally irrelevant to anyone building an NHRA Top Fuel car or an F1 car for that matter, since their rulebooks clearly state that the competition is for piston-engined vehicles only.

If you want to understand how race cars are developed within existing rules structures, do not study the history of invention, because there is precious little of that going on here. Study game theory. Race cars are not particularly advanced machines, even by automotive industry standards. The car you rent at the airport to go watch the F1 race is in many ways more advanced than any F1 car. Race cars are highly focused, single-purpose devices. One might even call them crude and simple. That's the beauty of them.

Great post!

As an engineering student (emphasis on student, the main reason I only read the TF and don't post here ) I've come to appreciate F1 more and more as I approach graduation. I no longer care that the Safety Car is crammed with more electronics and might be considered "more advanced" than the cars it's pacing... From a technical standpoint, it's incredible to see how the teams design, test, and build cars to work with such a rigorously regulated set of rules. And it's more astonishing how they improve their packages almost every year!

Cheers, and happy new year!

[Chevy II Nova]

Not to mention Bob, that they design, test and produce those cars in a span of just a year.

[MarkWill]

Phew! Thars a lot of diffrent threads an stuff an all in that thore first post! Still, I now have the answer to my age-old question - "why didn`t NASA use a propellor-engine to get halfway up into space, then jettison it once the air ran out and use a rocket for the last bit?" They used rockets all the way to save money.

Merry Christmas to orl.

[Chevy II Nova]

Save money? One of the X-Prize competitors is going to use the tow method because it is supposed to be cheaper and safer.

[Franklin]

Air launch into space means the vehicle does not have to accelerate from a dead stop to supersonic speed in the thickest part of the atmosphere. That's why Rutan is using it for SpaceShipOne (which in its most recent test flight attained a supersonic speed of 930 mph and an altitude of 68,000 feet) just as was done for the X-15, except Rutan had to build his own B-52.

As far as motorsports is concerned, it's too bad there's little recognition and no money in boat racing because that's where the virgin territory is for visionary thinking based on real cutting edge ideas.

How about instead of setting the World Water Speed Record with a hydroplane using a 400 mph submarine or possibly a supersonic boat?

C Tech Defense Corporation 2509 West 19th Street, Port Angeles, WA 98363
PHONE (360) 452-2275 * FAX (360) 452-2297 * info@ctech.esdcorp.com

Underwater Speed Limits

(Following is the full text submitted to Scientific American. The
published version was shortened for editorial reasons.)

"There appear to be two conceptual ways of approaching supercavitation.
The generally accepted one derives from propeller cavitation theory and
holds that the water is essentially boiled by dropping its pressure via
abrupt acceleration. This creates a source of gaseous water vapor which
creates the cavitation bubble. It is generally assumed that the
cavitation bubble is filled with this water vapor. Indeed, in low speed
(say torpedoes) supercavitation applications the cavity size is usually
enhanced with ventilation gases. This fits well with the understanding
that gas creates the bubble in the first place and appears to work well
within that context. It also fits comfortably in the general framework
of marine engineering.

Last September, at an ONR sponsored Supercavitation Conference, Dr.
Kirschner (of Anteon Corporation) and I were discussing the idea of a
theoretical speed limit for supercavitating objects, assuming material
strength issues could be overcome. As previously mentioned, conventional
wisdom holds that the cavity is created by the water vapor and
therefore, at some speed, the volumetric rate at which vapor can be
generated will become insufficient to support the formation of a
cavitation bubble which will clear the body. In other words, at some
velocity the rate at which the water boils will become insufficient to
fill the volume of the "hole" in the water created by the passage of the
projectile and the cavity will collapse.

For whatever reason, I have a different mental picture of how the bubble
is created, perhaps due to my background in hypersonics in graduate
school. In that field discontinuities and rarified flows are encountered
in the course of normal business. I do not know if anyone else shares
this view but Dr. Kirschner and I have discussed it at some length. In
any case, I believe the process is fundamentally one of momentum
transfer. The cavitator, be it a disk or cone or whatever, imparts a
significant radial velocity (relative to the axis of flight) to the
water it comes in contact with. In effect the water is thrown violently
to the side. It therefore has a high radial momentum that is resisted by
the pressure of the water around it. This pressure serves to slow its
radial velocity and will bring it to a stop over a finite time. The
accepted definition of cavitation number is compatible with this idea.
In the meantime, assuming a circularly symmetric cavitator, a round
"hole" has been created in the water. What is in this hole, other than
the projectile? I believe it is a vacuum, at least initially. Of course
the water on the interior face of the bubble begins to boil, but it can
only boil so fast, even in a hard vacuum. At slow velocities the rate of
boiling can create a fairly decent partial pressure of water vapor in
the cavity. In the limit case, as velocity increases, the pressure
inside the cavity in the vicinity of the projectile will go to zero.
Eventually the pressure acting on the water will reverse its radial
velocity and cause the cavity to close. However, the projectile will be
long gone by that point. If this approach is correct then, except for
finding a material to withstand the steady state stagnation pressure,
there may be no hydrodynamic upper limit to the velocity of a
supercavitating body.

In any case, perhaps there is room for both viewpoints. In fact, they
may very well be opposite sides of the same theoretical coin. I would
certainly be interested to know what other people in the field thought
of this approach. Perhaps it would provide an interesting topic of
discussion within the article?"

[dosco]

Originally posted by Franklin

Underwater Speed Limits

(Following is the full text submitted to Scientific American. The
published version was shortened for editorial reasons.)

Franklin, who wrote this article?

[Franklin]

Oddly enough the author is not listed with the text.

http://www.ctechdefense.com/speed.html

[Cociani]

The highest evolution of the "Boat" was the Russian Ekranoplans which don't even touch the water once they get going but rather fly just above it using small wings in ground effect. The advantage in the design over an airoplane is they do not create as much drag using large wings and they do not have to push through water with a propeller or a hull,(Except when taking off, the most inefficient part). Thought the Idea had been tossed around for a while in the 20's and thirties the invention and development of these vehicles were done by Soviet Scientist and not American hot rodders, no matter what you say Franklin.

Here are some links, http://aquaglide.ru/
http://www.se-techno...m/wig/index.php


Now those are some "High tech" boats for you.