509 replies to this topic

[Franklin Ratliff]

http://www.ismasuper...sky-7-29-06.htm

Evolution of front engine Indy cars continued after the rear engine revolution, just not at Indy.

[baddog]

What part evolved?

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by baddog
What part evolved?

Front engine with the engine offset to the left.

Supermodifieds are the product of forty years of evolution after rear engine cars took over at Indy.

After 60 million years people also have a hard time recognizing birds as dinosaurs.

[Ross Stonefeld]

or dinosaurs as birds?

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
or dinosaurs as birds?

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
or dinosaurs as birds?

"You say potato, I say..."

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
After 60 million years people also have a hard time recognizing birds as dinosaurs.

Well, I can recognize those cars on that link as dinosaurs!

SuperMods are fast, in their small operating window, no doubt. Most of the ones I've seen are very sketchy. Not exactly what I'd call top level engineering.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


Well, I can recognize those cars on that link as dinosaurs!

SuperMods are fast, in their small operating window, no doubt. Most of the ones I've seen are very sketchy. Not exactly what I'd call top level engineering.

Not exactly what I'd call a top level knowledge of supermodifieds.

In 1995, before the CART/IRL split when Indy cars were still turbo, supermodifieds were turning lap speeds at Phoenix fast enough to have qualified for the Indy car race there.

http://valleynewsonl...ts/062p1_lg.jpg

A further sampling of supermodifieds.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And in certain conditions Formula 3 cars accelerate faster than Formula 1 cars. Moving onwards and upwards...

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
And in certain conditions Formula 3 cars accelerate faster than Formula 1 cars. Moving onwards and upwards...

Who cares?

Supermodfieds were turning LAP AVERAGES faster than some of the CART Indy cars running at Phoenix.

http://www.automotiv...in/t187102.html

The link above may improve your knowledge of supermodifeds.

Indy car performance at a fraction of Indy car cost.

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Who cares?

I think that was HIS point.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by imaginesix

I think that was HIS point.

Sounds like someone who doesn't want to think about how little extra performance is bought by paying the absurd grossly overinflated prices associated with supposedly more advanced racecars like Indy kit cars.

[McGuire]

Sorry, but the Supermodified lap record at Phoenix is about three seconds and 25 mph slower than the Indy car record there. The link you posted earlier shows Supers running at Sandusky, which is a half-mile paved oval. Indy and Champ cars can't even run on half-miles. They're too %&@# fast.

Nothing against Supers or the guys who run these ingenious backyard specials; I think they are cool as hell. But they are not Indy cars and there is no pretending they are. The era of backyard specials at the Speedway is long since over. These cars truly are dinosaurs, with beam axles, pushrod V8's and tube chassis. Before we get any further into pretending these are Indy cars: has anyone ever performed an FIA crash test on one?

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by McGuire
Sorry, but the Supermodified lap record at Phoenix is about three seconds and 25 mph slower than the Indy car record there. The link you posted earlier shows Supers running at Sandusky, which is a half-mile paved oval. Indy and Champ cars can't even run on half-miles. They're too %&@# fast.

Nothing against Supers or the guys who run these ingenious backyard specials; I think they are cool as hell. But they are not Indy cars and there is no pretending they are. The era of backyard specials at the Speedway is long since over. These cars truly are dinosaurs, with beam axles, pushrod V8's and tube chassis. Before we get any further into pretending these are Indy cars: has anyone ever performed an FIA crash test on one?

I took care to mention the specific year (1995) and type (turbo CART Indy car) I was using for comparison.

"These cars truly are dinosaurs, with beam axles, pushrod V8's and tube chassis." In the link you were too closed-minded to bother reading, beam axle supers were competitive with IFS supers because in some turns beam axles actually provide better camber control than IFS. Twin overhead cams are only an advantage in small displacement engines of three liters or less. You don't see twin overhead cam 350 cubic inch V-8s because they end up bulkier and heavier than pushrod V-8s.

NASCAR teams are getting 800+ horsepower from pushrod V-8s turning 10,000 rpm.

"...has anyone ever performed an FIA crash test on one?" Does the FIA have a more realistic crash test for 1,800 lb open wheelers than running 120+ mph laps on half mile ovals?

[Fat Boy]

Hey, Frank, do you have a point or do you just want to argue?

Everyone will acknowledge that a SuperMod is fast. They're great to watch. Your approach to the thread is bordering on absurd, though.

Many streamliners go faster than the BAR car on salt for much less money....and this proves?

A backyard drag car can run a 1/4 mile faster than a Champ, IRL, or SuperMod car.....and this proves?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Fat Boy
Hey, Frank, do you have a point or do you just want to argue?

Everyone will acknowledge that a SuperMod is fast. They're great to watch. Your approach to the thread is bordering on absurd, though.

Many streamliners go faster than the BAR car on salt for much less money....and this proves?

A backyard drag car can run a 1/4 mile faster than a Champ, IRL, or SuperMod car.....and this proves?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Supermodifieds get over 90% of the performance of an Indy car for not even 50% of the cost (actually more like 20% to 30% of the cost). Something to think about when the powers that be at Indy sweat bullets every year wondering whether enough cars will show up to make a 33 car field.

The powers that be at NASCAR thought about things like this. That's why this past february at Daytona saw the largest field of prototypes ever seen at the 24 Hours.

"You're comparing apples and oranges" is a nonsensical comment since I'm comparing open wheelers running on ovals to open wheelers running on ovals.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


beam axles actually provide better camber control than IFS.

Sorry Frank but that is totally false. First, "camber control" is not a problem with any IFS systems produced in the last several decades. Camber rates are easily used to advantage. Next, beam axles do not offer better "camber control" anyway. With a beam axle it is a simple matter to keep the wheels parallel to each other as they are locked together. So now try keeping them parallel to the ground. Take a look at the camber of this RF wheel. Or the LF. In fact with a beam axle there is zero "camber control" where it matters: relative to the track surface.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by McGuire


Sorry Frank but that is totally false. First, "camber control" is not a problem with any IFS systems produced in the last several decades. Camber rates are easily used to advantage. Next, beam axles do not offer better "camber control" anyway. With a beam axle it is a simple matter to keep the wheels parallel to each other as they are locked together. So now try keeping them parallel to the ground. Take a look at the camber of this RF wheel. Or the LF. In fact with a beam axle there is zero "camber control" where it matters: relative to the track surface.

"Sorry Frank but that is totally false. First, "camber control" is not a problem with any IFS systems produced in the last several decades" is nonsensical b u l l s h i t. Actual professional racecar designers who've been interviewed for or had articles published in magazines such as RACETECH or RACECAR ENGINEERING say the same thing.

Don't give a s h i t about a midget running on DIRT. We were discussing SUPERMODIFIEDS running on PAVEMENT.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Front engine with the engine offset to the left.

Supermodifieds are the product of forty years of evolution after rear engine cars took over at Indy.

But they are not really.. they are NOT what indycars would be if noone ever moved the engine to the back.. they are not advanced and sophisticated machines that approach the limit for the possibility within their basic rules..

They are, effectively, simple or even crude technology. You talk about lap records, but those exist because of engine and such rules, not because the cars are better. An indycar built with the same engine type they would be in a different league.

Im not saying they arent fast and fun.. but they are 1960s F1 cars, if that. I invite you to imagine what Ferrari could do with a 7.7LITRE engine.. given they generate MORE horsepower out of a 2.5. Let alone aero and a carbon car.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by baddog


But they are not really.. they are NOT what indycars would be if noone ever moved the engine to the back.. they are not advanced and sophisticated machines that approach the limit for the possibility within their basic rules..

They are, effectively, simple or even crude technology. You talk about lap records, but those exist because of engine and such rules, not because the cars are better. An indycar built with the same engine type they would be in a different league.

Im not saying they arent fast and fun.. but they are 1960s F1 cars, if that. I invite you to imagine what Ferrari could do with a 7.7LITRE engine.. given they generate MORE horsepower out of a 2.5. Let alone aero and a carbon car.

Supermodifieds get over 90% of the performance of an Indy car for not even 50% of the cost (actually more like 20% to 30% of the cost).

Now think about replacing that big heavy V-8 with an actual high tech engine such as a 200 lb gas turbine generating 1,500 horsepower used in airplanes and helicopters every day at airports all over the world.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Supermodifieds get over 90% of the performance of an Indy car for not even 50% of the cost (actually more like 20% to 30% of the cost).

Now think about replacing that big heavy V-8 with a 200 lb gas turbine generating 1,500 horsepower.

Cost? whats cost got to do with it? cost is what the series success allows them to spend. Hence its a result of your subject not a cause of it.

If you allow the indycar engine to be 7.7 litres and that gap would be massive.. 1,500 HP would be easy to get out of that size engine.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by baddog


Cost? whats cost got to do with it? cost is what the series success allows them to spend. Hence its a result of your subject not a cause of it.

If you allow the indycar engine to be 7.7 litres and that gap would be massive.. 1,500 HP would be easy to get out of that size engine.

NASCAR thought about cost.

They're in the racing business.

They ended with up prototypes that privateers could afford to race.

That's why this year's Daytona 24 Hours saw the largest field ever.

P.S. Gas turbines can generate 1,500 horsepower all day long. A 7.7 liter V-8 can't (besides being several HUNDRED pounds heavier).

The Miss Budweiser hydroplane team once ran an entire season on one gas turbine engine.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


NASCAR thought about cost.

They're in the racing business.

They ended with up prototypes that privateers could afford to race.

That's why this year's Daytona 24 Hours saw the largest field ever.

You claimed that these cars were basically what indycars would be if they had never moved.. or at least that in some way they represented the same evolution.. when manifestly they do not, an engineer of the 1950s would have had few suprises in store on one of these..

The aero is basically "it looked good and someone won with one like that before"
The engine is in a real sense a tuned version of something out of a pickup
The chassis is crudely constructed from tube steel and is wildly different depending who built it
The bodywork serves no purpose except modesty, being crudely slapped on.

Im just totally unimpressed with these cars FROM A TECH PERSPECTIVE.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by baddog


You claimed that these cars were basically what indycars would be if they had never moved.. or at least that in some way they represented the same evolution.. when manifestly they do not, an engineer of the 1950s would have had few suprises in store on one of these..

The aero is basically "it looked good and someone won with one like that before"
The engine is in a real sense a tuned version of something out of a pickup
The chassis is crudely constructed from tube steel and is wildly different depending who built it
The bodywork serves no purpose except modesty, being crudely slapped on.

Im just totally unimpressed with these cars FROM A TECH PERSPECTIVE.

Are you illiterate? Do you not understand the concept of critical thinking? Those are the only explanations I can think of for being unable to grasp a simple phrase like "forty years of evolution." Here's a clue. It's the OPPOSITE of "not moving on."

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by baddog


You claimed that these cars were basically what indycars would be if they had never moved.. or at least that in some way they represented the same evolution.. when manifestly they do not, an engineer of the 1950s would have had few suprises in store on one of these..

The aero is basically "it looked good and someone won with one like that before"
The engine is in a real sense a tuned version of something out of a pickup
The chassis is crudely constructed from tube steel and is wildly different depending who built it
The bodywork serves no purpose except modesty, being crudely slapped on.

Im just totally unimpressed with these cars FROM A TECH PERSPECTIVE.

"Im just totally unimpressed with these cars FROM A TECH PERSPECTIVE" because you're ignorant about them. The Clyde Booth car? NOT a beam front axle. NOT a spaceframe. The Clyde Booth car is a moncoque chassis created by bonding aluminum honeycomb panels to a steel tubing frame. It uses independent pushrod front suspension similar to an Indy car but with the spring/shocks mounted on the bottom of the chassis instead of the top.

[Fat Boy]

Frank,

I'm not sure what the competition was, but you win. You're right. You're the smartest. SuperMods are the best.

Happy?

[Stoatspeed]

Fascinating thread ..... if you want to see a different take on the ultimate evolution of front engined cars on a different continent (yes, really there ARE others!), try this link : http://www.mannic-racing.co.uk

All wheel drive, front mounted offset engine, "adequate" horsepower, simple tube frame ... turbine engine? yep, got one of those in there too!

Spiritually, the Mannic is also a descendant of the ultimate FE roadsters, even having a lay-down 4-cylinder "real racing engine". The only difference is that it does it's thing on the short distance spped hillclimbs of the UK, not the short tracks of the Midwest .... horses for courses, old boy!
And all engineered by a man with a day job!

Sorry, I'll let you girls get back to throwing big blocks at each other!

Dave

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Supermodifieds get over 90% of the performance of an Indy car for not even 50% of the cost (actually more like 20% to 30% of the cost).

If anyone decides to go racing for the sole purpose of reaching the greatest possible performance for the money, then they will probably be best served with a kart or solo-II racer. And yes, Champcar or any other top-echelon series would be the worst places to get speed-for-your-buck.

Is that your whole point?

[baddog]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


"Im just totally unimpressed with these cars FROM A TECH PERSPECTIVE" because you're ignorant about them. The Clyde Booth car? NOT a beam front axle. NOT a spaceframe. The Clyde Booth car is a moncoque chassis created by bonding aluminum honeycomb panels to a steel tubing frame. It uses independent pushrod front suspension similar to an Indy car but with the spring/shocks mounted on the bottom of the chassis instead of the top.

Is it? pushrod suspension is trivially simple in conception.. its like saying a pedal car is the same a a BMW because they both have rack and pinion steering. And I see rc buggy suspension at the wheel on most of these cars

As soon as you start with a steel tubing frame you are talking ancient tech..

And anyway all those cars on that page.. they arent what you just described at all. Maybe there is a car which is 10 years ahead of it rivals, I dont know.. but its hardly a truly modern racing car.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Don't give a s h i t about a midget running on DIRT. We were discussing SUPERMODIFIEDS running on PAVEMENT.

Frank, it makes no difference what kind of car or surface. With a beam axle, if you lose one degree of camber in one side, it will put one degree of camber in the other side. Or vice versa. No matter what: the wheels are linked together. That's the problem with it. There really is no "camber control" with a beam axle. You may be familiar with a term in automotive engineering: "independent front suspension." Virtually all modern cars use it, racing or production.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


"Im just totally unimpressed with these cars FROM A TECH PERSPECTIVE" because you're ignorant about them. The Clyde Booth car? NOT a beam front axle. NOT a spaceframe. The Clyde Booth car is a moncoque chassis created by bonding aluminum honeycomb panels to a steel tubing frame. It uses independent pushrod front suspension similar to an Indy car but with the spring/shocks mounted on the bottom of the chassis instead of the top.

In other words, it's a weak imitation of race car practice for the past several decades.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


I took care to mention the specific year (1995) and type (turbo CART Indy car) I was using for comparison.

"These cars truly are dinosaurs, with beam axles, pushrod V8's and tube chassis." In the link you were too closed-minded to bother reading, beam axle supers were competitive with IFS supers because in some turns beam axles actually provide better camber control than IFS. Twin overhead cams are only an advantage in small displacement engines of three liters or less. You don't see twin overhead cam 350 cubic inch V-8s because they end up bulkier and heavier than pushrod V-8s.

NASCAR teams are getting 800+ horsepower from pushrod V-8s turning 10,000 rpm.

"...has anyone ever performed an FIA crash test on one?" Does the FIA have a more realistic crash test for 1,800 lb open wheelers than running 120+ mph laps on half mile ovals?

In NASCAR the push rod valvetrain is a real disadvantage. It doesn't provide the stiffness that you want, it doesn't give the freedom to design the inlet ports as you want and the two valves per cylinder is also a real disadvantage. These valvetrains are a nightmare to design, and even with exotic materials like beryllium and MMC's it will limit the performance of the engine.
A four valve overhead cam engine, either with one cam ber bank with rockers, or with two cams per bank and inverted buckets or finger followers will be a better choice for performance, the exception is cost for low tech engines.

Overhrad cams are commonly used on large displacement engines, and engines using overhead cams can usually be made both smaller and lighter for a given power output.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Supermodifieds get over 90% of the performance of an Indy car for not even 50% of the cost (actually more like 20% to 30% of the cost).

Supermodifieds DO NOT achieve 90% of the performance of an Indy car. For example: Indy cars are very proficient on all types of road courses, while supermodifieds cannot perform a right turn at speed. Their ability to achieve high cornering rates on oval tracks is primarily due to their extreme left-side weight bias. In a right turn they are junk.

[m9a3r5i7o2n]

Oh well here is my less than a mill (1,000 of a doller) answer!

M.L. Anderson :

http://www.netaxs.co...1/race/resc.htm

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Stoatspeed
Fascinating thread ..... if you want to see a different take on the ultimate evolution of front engined cars on a different continent (yes, really there ARE others!), try this link : http://www.mannic-racing.co.uk

All wheel drive, front mounted offset engine, "adequate" horsepower, simple tube frame ... turbine engine? yep, got one of those in there too!

Spiritually, the Mannic is also a descendant of the ultimate FE roadsters, even having a lay-down 4-cylinder "real racing engine". The only difference is that it does it's thing on the short distance spped hillclimbs of the UK, not the short tracks of the Midwest .... horses for courses, old boy!
And all engineered by a man with a day job!

Sorry, I'll let you girls get back to throwing big blocks at each other!

Dave

VERY cool.

Thanks.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by McGuire


Supermodifieds DO NOT achieve 90% of the performance of an Indy car. For example: Indy cars are very proficient on all types of road courses, while supermodifieds cannot perform a right turn at speed. Their ability to achieve high cornering rates on oval tracks is primarily due to their extreme left-side weight bias. In a right turn they are junk.

Of course, supermodifieds get 90% of Indy car performance.

Road course performance is irrelevant since we're talking about ovals.

But you would do well to remember with the same construction methods supermodified components could be rearranged into a very effective road racer.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


In NASCAR the push rod valvetrain is a real disadvantage. It doesn't provide the stiffness that you want, it doesn't give the freedom to design the inlet ports as you want and the two valves per cylinder is also a real disadvantage. These valvetrains are a nightmare to design, and even with exotic materials like beryllium and MMC's it will limit the performance of the engine.
A four valve overhead cam engine, either with one cam ber bank with rockers, or with two cams per bank and inverted buckets or finger followers will be a better choice for performance, the exception is cost for low tech engines.

Overhrad cams are commonly used on large displacement engines, and engines using overhead cams can usually be made both smaller and lighter for a given power output.

A twin overhead cam 350 cubic inch V-8 would be bulkier and heavier as well as having a higher center of gravity.

To get higher rpm with a from scratch pushrod V-8 you simply move the camshaft higher to shorten the pushrods as was done in the Mercedes pushrod V-8 with which the Penske team won the Indy 500.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Road course performance is irrelevant since we're talking about ovals.

A. It is not irrelevant. You were comparing a SuperMod to a 1995 CART Indy car which was meant to compete on short ovals (1 mile), Superspeedways, street circuits, and natural terrain road courses. Throughout the season a SuperMod would have been a few seconds off at about 3 tracks (Milwaukee, Nazareth, and Phoenix) and then wildly off pace everywhere else.

B. Let's get it straight. They would not have even been competitive on all ovals, because at Michigan, Indy, and in the following years, Fontana, they would again have been very, very slow.

C. A lot of what is special about a Champ/Indy car is their ability to keep the driver safe in a very high speed crash. The SuperMods that I've seen are simply not equipped to protect their drivers in anything close to a high speed collision. Most of these are baling wire and bubble gum contraptions that are fast because of wide, gooey tires, not because of any special engineering. There ability to sustain a 200+ MPH crash would be terribly inadequate.

D. I personally love watching SuperMods ripping around a 1/2 mile oval. They make a great show. However, you're attempting to make them into something their not, and you're making an ass of yourself in the process.

[Canuck]

It would appear Franklin is attempting to usurp my current status as resident Village Idiot.

[Ross Stonefeld]

at the very least, screaming mimi.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by imaginesix

If anyone decides to go racing for the sole purpose of reaching the greatest possible performance for the money, then they will probably be best served with a kart or solo-II racer. And yes, Champcar or any other top-echelon series would be the worst places to get speed-for-your-buck.

Is that your whole point?

The point is the top echelons of racing spending absurd amounts of money not reflected in the speeds of the cars on the track.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Right. But this is the tech forum. People here already knew that.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by McGuire


Frank, it makes no difference what kind of car or surface. With a beam axle, if you lose one degree of camber in one side, it will put one degree of camber in the other side. Or vice versa. No matter what: the wheels are linked together. That's the problem with it. There really is no "camber control" with a beam axle. You may be familiar with a term in automotive engineering: "independent front suspension." Virtually all modern cars use it, racing or production.

Again you're showing your ignorance.

Racing engineers know that the extremely smooth surface of many tracks renders what would otherwise be performance advantages of independent front suspension irrelevant.

This is demonstrated by the fact the Clyde Booth supermodified wins races but does not dominate in fields that include beam front axle cars.

To continue arguing the point in the face of this reality is simply juvenile.

It is also the extremely smooth surface of many modern racetracks that renders important the camber control of extremely wide front tires provided by beam front axles.

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Right. But this is the tech forum. People here already knew that.

Oh yeah, right.

Whatever you say.

They're the same ones falling all over themselves in the first place trying to rationalize the ridiculous amounts of money being spent.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think you're on the wrong end of the forum. Money spent on racing is about maximising the package, not how fast its going relative to other Formulae.

[baddog]

Especially when its the FORMULA thats lets the car go fast, not the design. Those builders arent achieveing more than a high echelon race car maker, they arre just doing something that allows high speed at low cost.

F1 Money in such a formula would get you a car that would not only win but would make those cars look like I built them. Is that not obvious??

[baddog]

I alos have trouble finding the car regulations for the isma cars.. its not really just V8, alcohol fuel and mechanical injection is it?

[Wuzak]

De ja vu.........

[Wuzak]

Mr Ratliff, aren't ifs systems banned for most/all supermod series?

[Franklin Ratliff]

Originally posted by Wuzak
Mr Ratliff, aren't ifs systems banned for most/all supermod series?

NO.

Many teams choose beam axles because they WORK.