| Opie | 06-10-2004 01:14 PM |
Nascar Test at Talledega yeilds 228MPH!!
�
�
228 MPH, top speed, 221 MPH lap average! :eek: Even if you don't like Nascar, you have to admit that's pretty damn impressive!
[url]http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/headlines/cup/06/10/rwallace_talladega/index.html[/url]
P.S. Any Nascar bashing threads will be deleted...so don't even bother.
[url]http://www.nascar.com/2004/news/headlines/cup/06/10/rwallace_talladega/index.html[/url]
P.S. Any Nascar bashing threads will be deleted...so don't even bother.
| DrBiggly | 06-10-2004 01:36 PM |
I'm more impressed with the radio test itself, although 228mph is nothing to sneeze at for sure. What is the normal speed on that particular speedway like?
| Bonzo | 06-10-2004 01:51 PM |
yikes I thought that was with restrictors. But it's not.
| Opie | 06-10-2004 02:08 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrBiggly[/i]
[B] I'm more impressed with the radio test itself, although 228mph is nothing to sneeze at for sure. What is the normal speed on that particular speedway like? [/B][/QUOTE]
At the last official race there in April, the Pole Position had an average lap speed of 191.180 (w/the Nascar mandated restrictor plates installed)
[B] I'm more impressed with the radio test itself, although 228mph is nothing to sneeze at for sure. What is the normal speed on that particular speedway like? [/B][/QUOTE]
At the last official race there in April, the Pole Position had an average lap speed of 191.180 (w/the Nascar mandated restrictor plates installed)
| jmott | 06-10-2004 02:17 PM |
did they add horsepower or reduce drag?
| BriDrive | 06-10-2004 02:20 PM |
In essence, by virtue of no restrictor plate, more power........
| kfoote | 06-10-2004 02:34 PM |
With restrictor plates, the rake laps are in the 190 MPH average rande. I would have guessed average lap times would have been in the 225 MPH range for the cars unrestricted, quite a bit faster than what Wallace actually ran.
| BriDrive | 06-10-2004 02:51 PM |
Opie....honestly I'm not that impressed ( as an F1 maverick ). The NASCARs have probably some of the best drag coefficients of any car on track this side of leMan prototypes...The closed wheel design and aero work they have been enjoying over the last decade give them tremendous ability to cut through the air and only utilize enough downforce to keep them barely planted around the turns.
I'd say the NASCARs biggest weakness related to speed is there weight....What do they weigh? 2700-3000 lbs? I think if these cars were able to shed say 800 lbs within fictitious rules, they would probably out pace the openwheelers on similar tracks...somewhere around 240-260 mph....obviously, no sanctioning body is gonna allow this kind of speed, but.....
The test is interesting to me also, as it apparently was to test new radio comm tech....i wonder how much of a difference in sound quality the drivers really could experience at 225 versus say 190, assuming there engines were still rapping at 7500-8000 rpms at either speed.
BriDrive
I'd say the NASCARs biggest weakness related to speed is there weight....What do they weigh? 2700-3000 lbs? I think if these cars were able to shed say 800 lbs within fictitious rules, they would probably out pace the openwheelers on similar tracks...somewhere around 240-260 mph....obviously, no sanctioning body is gonna allow this kind of speed, but.....
The test is interesting to me also, as it apparently was to test new radio comm tech....i wonder how much of a difference in sound quality the drivers really could experience at 225 versus say 190, assuming there engines were still rapping at 7500-8000 rpms at either speed.
BriDrive
| Chromer | 06-10-2004 03:38 PM |
Minimum weight is 3500lbs, IIRC.
| Opie | 06-10-2004 03:42 PM |
Yep, around 3500lbs, including driver.
I would like to know what kind of RPM's they were turning at those speeds, their motors now turn 8,000 to 9,000 in normal race conditions...:eek:
I would like to know what kind of RPM's they were turning at those speeds, their motors now turn 8,000 to 9,000 in normal race conditions...:eek:
| Bonzo | 06-10-2004 07:08 PM |
Restricted motors run up to about 7000rpm. Power drops way off above that. HP is in the range of 410 to 435.
Unrestricted motors are running up to 9k with the Dodges running over 9200rpm. Pretty impressive for that long stroke motor. HP is around 850 for the better ones.
Areo wise on anything but super speedways they are trying to achieve as much donw force as possible. One easy way is to kick out the front of the airdam just in front of teh wheel. For supers they look at the smallest of thing for aero and mechanical efficiency.
Unrestricted motors are running up to 9k with the Dodges running over 9200rpm. Pretty impressive for that long stroke motor. HP is around 850 for the better ones.
Areo wise on anything but super speedways they are trying to achieve as much donw force as possible. One easy way is to kick out the front of the airdam just in front of teh wheel. For supers they look at the smallest of thing for aero and mechanical efficiency.
| speedyHAM | 06-10-2004 10:46 PM |
Sorry, but I'm still not impressed. A porsche race car back in the late 70's pulled 238 around a similar track, only it was producing around 4000 lbs of downforce at that speed. 30 years and Nascar can't manage any better? Within their rules I'm sure it's about as much as they can get but it's still a carburated, NA V8 tube frame car with the front suspension out of an old pickup.
If you want to impress me, try 200+ mph, turning left and right without banks. Oh yeah- that's F1.
If you want to impress me, try 200+ mph, turning left and right without banks. Oh yeah- that's F1.
| Kitsune | 06-10-2004 11:20 PM |
All I have to say is, Bill Elliot before restrictor plates.
These new speeds are not that impressive, if anything, they should be expected.
These new speeds are not that impressive, if anything, they should be expected.
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 12:14 AM |
for the record Rusty went way faster than wild Bill and Rusty was also running a non-restricted motor.
Like I said before, a whole lotta motorpsorts ignorance is festering here.
Since Porsche was brought up. Hmmm, air cooled? wow, now that's techie! Hmm, engine located behind the rear trans. Inherently unstable from a weight dist pov.
I won't go into the pure elegent simplicity and effectivness a carb offers. Just too hard to comprehend for some of your juvenile heads planted in the sand.
Like I said before, a whole lotta motorpsorts ignorance is festering here.
Since Porsche was brought up. Hmmm, air cooled? wow, now that's techie! Hmm, engine located behind the rear trans. Inherently unstable from a weight dist pov.
I won't go into the pure elegent simplicity and effectivness a carb offers. Just too hard to comprehend for some of your juvenile heads planted in the sand.
| wil69 | 06-11-2004 12:31 AM |
i dont kno if i can be impressed w/ a race car w/ less gears than my car and the ability to only turn left.
| Kitsune | 06-11-2004 12:54 AM |
:rolleyes:
| bunni | 06-11-2004 04:42 AM |
Wow. This is ridiculous. I hope none of you claim to be 'enthusiasts'. It's a motor, a car, and a man, going over 200 mph on a track. It's cool, I can appreciate it. Drifting is lame too, right?
C'mon guys. Don't we all like cars? Or is it just WRC and AutoX.
:o
C'mon guys. Don't we all like cars? Or is it just WRC and AutoX.
:o
| MJU1983 | 06-11-2004 04:54 AM |
werd. and on the outside looking in, auto-x is lame.
| wrx2.0 555 | 06-11-2004 07:03 AM |
I agree with ALL of you. It's lame and cool at the same time. ;)
| Ryan | 06-11-2004 07:43 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by speedyHAM [/i]
[B]Sorry, but I'm still not impressed. A porsche race car back in the late 70's pulled 238 around a similar track, only it was producing around 4000 lbs of downforce at that speed. 30 years and Nascar can't manage any better? Within their rules I'm sure it's about as much as they can get but it's still a carburated, NA V8 tube frame car with the front suspension out of an old pickup.
If you want to impress me, try 200+ mph, turning left and right without banks. Oh yeah- that's F1. [/B][/QUOTE]
I suppose you turned down a seat in NASCAR already?
The ignorance here is festering, and it stinks. These are not hillbilly rednecks that can only turn left, and these cars are not technological dinosaurs. They make subarus (and most other cars) look like lincoln logs in comparison.
[B]Sorry, but I'm still not impressed. A porsche race car back in the late 70's pulled 238 around a similar track, only it was producing around 4000 lbs of downforce at that speed. 30 years and Nascar can't manage any better? Within their rules I'm sure it's about as much as they can get but it's still a carburated, NA V8 tube frame car with the front suspension out of an old pickup.
If you want to impress me, try 200+ mph, turning left and right without banks. Oh yeah- that's F1. [/B][/QUOTE]
I suppose you turned down a seat in NASCAR already?
The ignorance here is festering, and it stinks. These are not hillbilly rednecks that can only turn left, and these cars are not technological dinosaurs. They make subarus (and most other cars) look like lincoln logs in comparison.
| TimStevens | 06-11-2004 08:12 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BriDrive[/i]
[B]I'd say the NASCARs biggest weakness related to speed is there weight....What do they weigh? 2700-3000 lbs? I think if these cars were able to shed say 800 lbs within fictitious rules, they would probably out pace the openwheelers on similar tracks...somewhere around 240-260 mph....obviously, no sanctioning body is gonna allow this kind of speed, but..... [/B][/QUOTE]
Weight does not affect top speed. Sure, it'll take longer to get there in a heavier car, but at a circuit like Talledega where you never hit the brakes acceleration is pretty meaningless.
Anyway, I think we need a no-NASCAR bashing rule in this forum. I'm no fan, but damn am I ever tired of seeing people whine about it.
-tim
p.s. If we're talking about impressive feats of speed, I'm more impressed by the recent MotoGP race at Mugello, where Shinji Nakano FELL OFF HIS BIKE at 200+ mph going down the front staight!!! Thankfully he was uninjured. Pretty amazing. :)
[B]I'd say the NASCARs biggest weakness related to speed is there weight....What do they weigh? 2700-3000 lbs? I think if these cars were able to shed say 800 lbs within fictitious rules, they would probably out pace the openwheelers on similar tracks...somewhere around 240-260 mph....obviously, no sanctioning body is gonna allow this kind of speed, but..... [/B][/QUOTE]
Weight does not affect top speed. Sure, it'll take longer to get there in a heavier car, but at a circuit like Talledega where you never hit the brakes acceleration is pretty meaningless.
Anyway, I think we need a no-NASCAR bashing rule in this forum. I'm no fan, but damn am I ever tired of seeing people whine about it.
-tim
p.s. If we're talking about impressive feats of speed, I'm more impressed by the recent MotoGP race at Mugello, where Shinji Nakano FELL OFF HIS BIKE at 200+ mph going down the front staight!!! Thankfully he was uninjured. Pretty amazing. :)
| wrx2.0 555 | 06-11-2004 08:28 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ryan [/i]
[B]I suppose you turned down a seat in NASCAR already?
The ignorance here is festering, and it stinks. These are not hillbilly rednecks that can only turn left, and these cars are not technological dinosaurs. They make subarus (and most other cars) look like lincoln logs in comparison. [/B][/QUOTE]
There have been a couple of you making comments like this, so why dont you enlighten us with some of the details of NASCARS extreme technology.
The type of racing they are doing just doesnt present a scenario in need of great techologies.
If anything, I would be most impressed by the stamina of the drivers. That, I can respect. Whether you're driving in a circle or not, driving at high speeds for THAT long would be very stressful.
Then again, what to do I know. I get tired at an autocross. :lol:
Scott
[B]I suppose you turned down a seat in NASCAR already?
The ignorance here is festering, and it stinks. These are not hillbilly rednecks that can only turn left, and these cars are not technological dinosaurs. They make subarus (and most other cars) look like lincoln logs in comparison. [/B][/QUOTE]
There have been a couple of you making comments like this, so why dont you enlighten us with some of the details of NASCARS extreme technology.
The type of racing they are doing just doesnt present a scenario in need of great techologies.
If anything, I would be most impressed by the stamina of the drivers. That, I can respect. Whether you're driving in a circle or not, driving at high speeds for THAT long would be very stressful.
Then again, what to do I know. I get tired at an autocross. :lol:
Scott
| Ryan | 06-11-2004 08:57 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrx2.0 555 [/i]
[B]There have been a couple of you making comments like this, so why dont you enlighten us with some of the details of NASCARS extreme technology.[/quote]
Just look at the millions of $$ spent every year on each team. The big teams have 30+ cars depending on the type of track they are running. They have in house engine dynos. Computer modelling, everything is built from the ground up, in house. Its not 50's stock car racing. Yes the ruleset may seem like they are outdated, but given the ruleset they run under (carb'ed 358, 3500 lb) it makes it more impressive to me.
[quote]The type of racing they are doing just doesnt present a scenario in need of great techologies. [/B][/QUOTE]
When you have nearly 40 cars on track all separated by a few tenths or a few mph, they take every advantage you can get for yourself or the car.
[B]There have been a couple of you making comments like this, so why dont you enlighten us with some of the details of NASCARS extreme technology.[/quote]
Just look at the millions of $$ spent every year on each team. The big teams have 30+ cars depending on the type of track they are running. They have in house engine dynos. Computer modelling, everything is built from the ground up, in house. Its not 50's stock car racing. Yes the ruleset may seem like they are outdated, but given the ruleset they run under (carb'ed 358, 3500 lb) it makes it more impressive to me.
[quote]The type of racing they are doing just doesnt present a scenario in need of great techologies. [/B][/QUOTE]
When you have nearly 40 cars on track all separated by a few tenths or a few mph, they take every advantage you can get for yourself or the car.
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 09:16 AM |
No one said Nascar is highly technical. Nascar has very specific rules in place to keep the racing equal and close.
You want to see driving. Go to Atl or NC and watch them average close to 200mph on a 1.5 miles track:eek: That is freekin scary fast.
In the end all of racing is a rolling billboard. If it was'nt for advertisers you would not see one lick of racing on TV.
F1, WRC, motoGP etc are all here for money and product promotion.
Scrappydo, how much direct experience in Nascar are you drawing on to form your ipinions?
You want to see driving. Go to Atl or NC and watch them average close to 200mph on a 1.5 miles track:eek: That is freekin scary fast.
In the end all of racing is a rolling billboard. If it was'nt for advertisers you would not see one lick of racing on TV.
F1, WRC, motoGP etc are all here for money and product promotion.
Scrappydo, how much direct experience in Nascar are you drawing on to form your ipinions?
| Chromer | 06-11-2004 09:20 AM |
[quote]I too would like to see a shining example of the wonderous technology that NASCAR produces.[/quote]
A whole lot of NASCAR tech is invisible. But there is BIG, BIG money spent on aero, volumetric efficiency, combustion chamber optimization (head & piston) and fueling (despite running carbs).
Take a wild guess at what static compression ratio the top engines run at. Now double that number and you're probably getting close.
The "lean burn" and "swirl" heads on your car today came almost straight out of Nascar. "Stratified charge" heads still haven't made it to passenger cars. How'd you like to be able to run 17:1 AFR's with lots of timing and _no_detonation? NASCAR engines do...
Personally I'd like to see them run more road courses and move to more production-based vehicles. But don't for a second think they're low-tech.
A whole lot of NASCAR tech is invisible. But there is BIG, BIG money spent on aero, volumetric efficiency, combustion chamber optimization (head & piston) and fueling (despite running carbs).
Take a wild guess at what static compression ratio the top engines run at. Now double that number and you're probably getting close.
The "lean burn" and "swirl" heads on your car today came almost straight out of Nascar. "Stratified charge" heads still haven't made it to passenger cars. How'd you like to be able to run 17:1 AFR's with lots of timing and _no_detonation? NASCAR engines do...
Personally I'd like to see them run more road courses and move to more production-based vehicles. But don't for a second think they're low-tech.
| BriDrive | 06-11-2004 09:20 AM |
Nice one Opie.
When things get a little dull for a week or two, nothing like sparking off a new wild fire by mentioning NASCAR.
:lol:
When things get a little dull for a week or two, nothing like sparking off a new wild fire by mentioning NASCAR.
:lol:
| kfoote | 06-11-2004 09:42 AM |
Wow, there's a lot of misinformation here.
From earlier, the Porsche that ran 238 MPH in the mid-70's at Talledega was a Porsche 917-30 Can Am car. 1400+HP, 5.0L twin turbo V12 weighing in at about 1800 lbs with driver. It had better be faster than a 3400 lb car with 850 HP. Also, it was mid engined, not rear engined.
Nascar is not about new technology as much as it is about optomization of old technology. All the money is spent on that optomization, and there are a lot of very creative things going on with these cars that are not noticeable at first. As an example, a few years ago when Jeff Gordon won the Winston in the T-Rex car and made everyone else look silly, the car was CAD designed and had variable wall thickness in the tubing for the chassis and roll cage to optomize where and how the car would bend. It ws probably the most expensive NASCAR chassis ever built, but it did it's job.
Also, Nextel cup is limited in compression ratio by rules, either to 14:1 or 12.5:1, I don't remember which.
From earlier, the Porsche that ran 238 MPH in the mid-70's at Talledega was a Porsche 917-30 Can Am car. 1400+HP, 5.0L twin turbo V12 weighing in at about 1800 lbs with driver. It had better be faster than a 3400 lb car with 850 HP. Also, it was mid engined, not rear engined.
Nascar is not about new technology as much as it is about optomization of old technology. All the money is spent on that optomization, and there are a lot of very creative things going on with these cars that are not noticeable at first. As an example, a few years ago when Jeff Gordon won the Winston in the T-Rex car and made everyone else look silly, the car was CAD designed and had variable wall thickness in the tubing for the chassis and roll cage to optomize where and how the car would bend. It ws probably the most expensive NASCAR chassis ever built, but it did it's job.
Also, Nextel cup is limited in compression ratio by rules, either to 14:1 or 12.5:1, I don't remember which.
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 09:54 AM |
I have watched NASCAR when I was growing up, and have a few friends who are die hard fans. I use to read publications, and follow NASCAR tech on speed. I have friends that use to race an ARCA (Type) Car back in Louisiana (which does not really compare). I am not speaking ignorantly of NASCAR is my point. Its not blind hatred that makes me say such things. But lets face, it. They are not doing anything that has not been done for decades! If I had to build the same carburated 350ish cubic inch engine for 40 years, odds are I would find ways to optimize it. If I had to build the same water pump for 40 years I would have some pretty cool ideas on how to design a water pump. Working within the rules leads always leads to tweaks here and there. But 17:1 does not impress, me nor does swirl heads.
I have no way of proving it, but I would wager that Subaru did not look to NASCAR to learn about designing heads. Swirl heads have been around for quite some time. When you are forced to use a dinosaur of an engine, you find ways to make it the most efficient and powerful dinosaur you can. AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. Its a low tech sport, when you compare it with the likes of ....
WRC
CART
IRL
ALMS
and I dont even want to mention F1 because it should not be mentioned in the same sentence as NASCAR. Imagine a 3 liter engine (about half the size of a NASCAR motor) making more than 900 HP. That is technology that pushes what is even possible with a NA engine.
And we should not forget about those amazing 1.5 liter BMW engines of the past making well over 1300 HP (turbocharged mind you). I am a fan of pushing technology to make our cars better. NASCAR spits in the face of that.
I have no way of proving it, but I would wager that Subaru did not look to NASCAR to learn about designing heads. Swirl heads have been around for quite some time. When you are forced to use a dinosaur of an engine, you find ways to make it the most efficient and powerful dinosaur you can. AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. Its a low tech sport, when you compare it with the likes of ....
WRC
CART
IRL
ALMS
and I dont even want to mention F1 because it should not be mentioned in the same sentence as NASCAR. Imagine a 3 liter engine (about half the size of a NASCAR motor) making more than 900 HP. That is technology that pushes what is even possible with a NA engine.
And we should not forget about those amazing 1.5 liter BMW engines of the past making well over 1300 HP (turbocharged mind you). I am a fan of pushing technology to make our cars better. NASCAR spits in the face of that.
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 10:49 AM |
any dolt can turbo a motor to big numbers.
3 liters and only making 900hp is sad compared to a 2 stroke.
F1 is slow and under powered compared to bikes.
3 liters and only making 900hp is sad compared to a 2 stroke.
F1 is slow and under powered compared to bikes.
| Opie | 06-11-2004 11:16 AM |
Anyone who speaks this badly about another form of motorsports is NOT an enthusiast, you are an elitist. Nascar and F1 are so damn similar you are blind if you don't see it. They both spend loads of money creating a car from the ground up within their series ruleset to get that extra 10th of a second out of a lap. Have a crap comment to post about Nascar don't post it here.
| BriDrive | 06-11-2004 11:19 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bonzo[/i]
[B] any dolt can turbo a motor to big numbers.
3 liters and only making 900hp is sad compared to a 2 stroke.
F1 is slow and under powered compared to bikes. [/B][/QUOTE]
HUH ????:huh:
Only a few VERY specialized multimillion dollar enormous R&D'd engine builders could build the 1.5 turbo'd era F1 engines AND road race them. F1 engines were FAR from your first comment. That's just ignorant. HARDLY anyone could squeeze 1300 hp out of a 1.5 liter engine and make tractable. Certainly not any dolts.
The 2 stroke MotoGP engine. Total Apples to Oranges. The specific output of a 2-stroke makes roughly 1.5 to 2 times the horsepower of its 4 stroke in equivalent displacement...before tuning. Comparing the exquisite 3.0 liter NA v-10's that are pushing 19,000 rpm and making 900 hp and experiencing 95,000 combustion events every minute with that kind of reciprocating mass AND not having it self destruct for an entire F1 weekend is a phenominal engineering achievement.
Its takes MILLIONS of $ and Years of development. Before the MotoGP 2 strokes were mandated out, the engineers had nowhere near the R&D invested to get their 225 hp out of a 500cc engine. They didn't have to. Its RELATIVELY much, much easier.
To say F1 motors are underpowered compared to bikes is just laughable.
Compare apples to apples and compare the new generation of 4 stroke MotoGP engines to F1 engines and you get approximately 300 HP per liter out of the V-10 and you get just less than 225hp per liter out of the Honda V-5.
Sorry Bonzo.....you're wrong.
BriDrive
[B] any dolt can turbo a motor to big numbers.
3 liters and only making 900hp is sad compared to a 2 stroke.
F1 is slow and under powered compared to bikes. [/B][/QUOTE]
HUH ????:huh:
Only a few VERY specialized multimillion dollar enormous R&D'd engine builders could build the 1.5 turbo'd era F1 engines AND road race them. F1 engines were FAR from your first comment. That's just ignorant. HARDLY anyone could squeeze 1300 hp out of a 1.5 liter engine and make tractable. Certainly not any dolts.
The 2 stroke MotoGP engine. Total Apples to Oranges. The specific output of a 2-stroke makes roughly 1.5 to 2 times the horsepower of its 4 stroke in equivalent displacement...before tuning. Comparing the exquisite 3.0 liter NA v-10's that are pushing 19,000 rpm and making 900 hp and experiencing 95,000 combustion events every minute with that kind of reciprocating mass AND not having it self destruct for an entire F1 weekend is a phenominal engineering achievement.
Its takes MILLIONS of $ and Years of development. Before the MotoGP 2 strokes were mandated out, the engineers had nowhere near the R&D invested to get their 225 hp out of a 500cc engine. They didn't have to. Its RELATIVELY much, much easier.
To say F1 motors are underpowered compared to bikes is just laughable.
Compare apples to apples and compare the new generation of 4 stroke MotoGP engines to F1 engines and you get approximately 300 HP per liter out of the V-10 and you get just less than 225hp per liter out of the Honda V-5.
Sorry Bonzo.....you're wrong.
BriDrive
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 11:22 AM |
when did two strokes come into play?
3 liters and 900 HP is far from sad. And if that is the case then 5.7 liters and 850 HP is pathetic and whimpy.
I am not so sure that an F1 car can ever be called slow and underpowered...
3 liters and 900 HP is far from sad. And if that is the case then 5.7 liters and 850 HP is pathetic and whimpy.
I am not so sure that an F1 car can ever be called slow and underpowered...
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 11:25 AM |
Last I checked that the F1 cars completely smoke motoGP bikes around Suzuka.
| Opie | 06-11-2004 11:27 AM |
...and this thread is neither about F1 or motoGP so what's your point?
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 11:32 AM |
I regret I cannot state my point anymore for fear of being warned again...
Goodnight.
:(
Goodnight.
:(
| BriDrive | 06-11-2004 11:34 AM |
Laptimes for a motogp and an f1 are not instructive as one uses two wheels and weighs probably less tha 360lbs with rider and one uses 4 wheels, up to 4000lbs of generated downforce, etc etc ad infinitum.......
But, with that said, I'm with Opie. I wasn't always this way...but he's absolutely right.
Technological advancement and implementation has more to do with what you can research, develop and implement within a given rules set than anything else.
In ALL forms of top rung Motorsports, the only real difference in how competitor's attain the podium, is WHAT RULE SETS define their sport.
BriDrive
But, with that said, I'm with Opie. I wasn't always this way...but he's absolutely right.
Technological advancement and implementation has more to do with what you can research, develop and implement within a given rules set than anything else.
In ALL forms of top rung Motorsports, the only real difference in how competitor's attain the podium, is WHAT RULE SETS define their sport.
BriDrive
| wrx2.0 555 | 06-11-2004 11:37 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Opie [/i]
[B]...and this thread is neither about F1 or motoGP so what's your point? [/B][/QUOTE]
Opie, I'm quite certain that none of us mean any disrespect to you.
What we're seeing here is nature taking its course.
Many different opinions cause many different tagents.
Scott
[B]...and this thread is neither about F1 or motoGP so what's your point? [/B][/QUOTE]
Opie, I'm quite certain that none of us mean any disrespect to you.
What we're seeing here is nature taking its course.
Many different opinions cause many different tagents.
Scott
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 11:37 AM |
I think that developing a product within the rules forces you to think inside a confined space, but should the rules be opened up and more general, you would see more far reaching and differing ways to attain the same goal...
| Opie | 06-11-2004 11:45 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrx2.0 555 [/i]
[B]Opie, I'm quite certain that none of us mean any disrespect to you.
What we're seeing here is nature taking its course.
Many different opinions cause many different tagents.
Scott [/B][/QUOTE]
And I can respect those opinions if they when they are stated without being disrespectful to those that don't share the opinion.
Asscar, redneck, high-school dropout, etc...are by no means acceptable.
[B]Opie, I'm quite certain that none of us mean any disrespect to you.
What we're seeing here is nature taking its course.
Many different opinions cause many different tagents.
Scott [/B][/QUOTE]
And I can respect those opinions if they when they are stated without being disrespectful to those that don't share the opinion.
Asscar, redneck, high-school dropout, etc...are by no means acceptable.
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 11:46 AM |
And about the comment that F1 and Nascar are alike, with out posting a crap comment, that definition provided, I must point out that just about covers half of the motorsports out there today. But I would not say that F1 racing is just like Sprint cars either. Am I an elitist, maybe, but its my right to be such. I dont like Pontiacs either, and not a big fan of imitation Frosted Flakes. I like what I like...nobody has to like me nor my opinion... thats the beauty of this country. :alien:
| Chromer | 06-11-2004 12:17 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by kfoote[/i]
[B]
Also, Nextel cup is limited in compression ratio by rules, either to 14:1 or 12.5:1, I don't remember which. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wasn't aware of that. I don't exactly keep current. Some builders have said that static CR isn't really that important, because valve timing and cylinder filling rates have such a great effect on cylinder pressures.
IIRC, NASCAR builders started playing with swirl heads and lean-burn in the mid 80's. One of the articles I recently read on it was dated 1985...
I have no idea what that whole field has been refined into now that heads and piston dishes can be accurately measured and machined via CAD/CAM, CMM techniques, and in-cylinder monitoring, but I suspect impressive gains are still being made with each iteration.
[B]
Also, Nextel cup is limited in compression ratio by rules, either to 14:1 or 12.5:1, I don't remember which. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wasn't aware of that. I don't exactly keep current. Some builders have said that static CR isn't really that important, because valve timing and cylinder filling rates have such a great effect on cylinder pressures.
IIRC, NASCAR builders started playing with swirl heads and lean-burn in the mid 80's. One of the articles I recently read on it was dated 1985...
I have no idea what that whole field has been refined into now that heads and piston dishes can be accurately measured and machined via CAD/CAM, CMM techniques, and in-cylinder monitoring, but I suspect impressive gains are still being made with each iteration.
| kfoote | 06-11-2004 01:16 PM |
Just verified: Nextel cup compression ratio is 12:1
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 01:25 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SCRAPPYDO [/i]
[B]when did two strokes come into play?
3 liters and 900 HP is far from sad. And if that is the case then 5.7 liters and 850 HP is pathetic and whimpy.
I am not so sure that an F1 car can ever be called slow and underpowered... [/B][/QUOTE]
when did turbos come into play??
you brought up the hp thing so then did I. F1 engines only make 300hp per liter where as 500cc gp bike makes 400hp per liter.
comparing bikes and cars lap times are apples and oranges, you are now grasping.
[B]when did two strokes come into play?
3 liters and 900 HP is far from sad. And if that is the case then 5.7 liters and 850 HP is pathetic and whimpy.
I am not so sure that an F1 car can ever be called slow and underpowered... [/B][/QUOTE]
when did turbos come into play??
you brought up the hp thing so then did I. F1 engines only make 300hp per liter where as 500cc gp bike makes 400hp per liter.
comparing bikes and cars lap times are apples and oranges, you are now grasping.
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 01:48 PM |
[IMG]http://www.osengines.com/engines/osmg1891.jpg[/IMG]
Well this is 14.7 cc and has 4.8 HP @ 25000 rpm, well we are talking about 325 HP/liter, I suppose that is more impressive as well. (actually it is pretty darned impressive!)
However, we can seriously talk about the advantages of less cylinders for HP production, but I dont think it has anything to do with this subject anymore and most folks dont want to hear long disertations about drag and friction. However, it was pointed out that 2 strokes vs 4 strokes are different animals all together. compare the HP/liter output for the newer 4 stroke GP bikes and the results may be similar, but the advantage will always go to the smaller displacement engine.
Well this is 14.7 cc and has 4.8 HP @ 25000 rpm, well we are talking about 325 HP/liter, I suppose that is more impressive as well. (actually it is pretty darned impressive!)
However, we can seriously talk about the advantages of less cylinders for HP production, but I dont think it has anything to do with this subject anymore and most folks dont want to hear long disertations about drag and friction. However, it was pointed out that 2 strokes vs 4 strokes are different animals all together. compare the HP/liter output for the newer 4 stroke GP bikes and the results may be similar, but the advantage will always go to the smaller displacement engine.
| BlkRexWagon | 06-11-2004 02:52 PM |
I enjoy NASCAR, but honestly more because it is racing than anything else. The way I see it, 200+mph around a track in anything is pretty cool!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SCRAPPYDO [/i]
[B] If I had to build the same carburated 350ish cubic inch engine for 40 years, odds are I would find ways to optimize it. [/B][/QUOTE]
^ Perfect ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SCRAPPYDO [/i]
[B] If I had to build the same carburated 350ish cubic inch engine for 40 years, odds are I would find ways to optimize it. [/B][/QUOTE]
^ Perfect ;)
| SabreKhan | 06-11-2004 04:09 PM |
Wow... and this is all in two days... I've got to add my two cents here:
First off, 3500lbs. of ANYthing going around Talladega or Daytona is impressive. Your physics is getting rusty if you claim that weight doesn't play in here. Granted, these tracks have big, wide turns with 45� banking, but even with the restrictor plates on they still have to brake going around the turns (actually, they drag the brake while still keeping their right foot pegged to the floor, which I think is pretty cool). The lateral mass restricts the maximum velocity through the corners, especially given that they only have one tire choice, and that's mandated by NASCAR. I want to see somebody take a NASCAR out to Bonneville and see what the top speed is, because I bet it can be way north of 228, given a good straight spot.
Secondly, to say that NASCAR is low-tech is only half-true. Sure, they're still running carbs and changing aero mid-race with duct tape and chicken wire (no, really, they are), but that's the beauty of the sport: make your rule-defined beast go faster than the other guy's however you can. On the other hand, a modern Nextel-cup car costs a couple million and uncounted man and computer hours to build, so it's definitely higher-tech than anything you or I could get ahold of.
Thirdly, comparing F1 to bikes is in the same vein as comparing Nextel Cup to F1... apples and oranges. So, don't complain about apples and oranges without complaining about all of the different varieties. (NASCAR is like GrannySmith apples, and F1 is like Fuji apples? MotoGP is like... crabapples because it's smaller?)
Fourthly (this is getting long, isn't it?), and this is the stock-car racer in me, door-to-door bumper-to-bumper racing is way more exciting than F1 or motorcycle racing to watch and to drive. I love driving a car with precision, but knocking Bubba out of the way with my front bumper and slingshotting around him for position is way more fun than any autox or track day. More expensive, too, though... Don't get me wrong, I LOVE racing in all its forms, but stock car racing has a special place in my heart. Rally is exciting just because the cars and drivers are performing amazing feats of skill and stupidity on a dirt road.
Man, that was about three dollars instead of the two cents I started with... if anybody read that at all, thanks for the stamina.
First off, 3500lbs. of ANYthing going around Talladega or Daytona is impressive. Your physics is getting rusty if you claim that weight doesn't play in here. Granted, these tracks have big, wide turns with 45� banking, but even with the restrictor plates on they still have to brake going around the turns (actually, they drag the brake while still keeping their right foot pegged to the floor, which I think is pretty cool). The lateral mass restricts the maximum velocity through the corners, especially given that they only have one tire choice, and that's mandated by NASCAR. I want to see somebody take a NASCAR out to Bonneville and see what the top speed is, because I bet it can be way north of 228, given a good straight spot.
Secondly, to say that NASCAR is low-tech is only half-true. Sure, they're still running carbs and changing aero mid-race with duct tape and chicken wire (no, really, they are), but that's the beauty of the sport: make your rule-defined beast go faster than the other guy's however you can. On the other hand, a modern Nextel-cup car costs a couple million and uncounted man and computer hours to build, so it's definitely higher-tech than anything you or I could get ahold of.
Thirdly, comparing F1 to bikes is in the same vein as comparing Nextel Cup to F1... apples and oranges. So, don't complain about apples and oranges without complaining about all of the different varieties. (NASCAR is like GrannySmith apples, and F1 is like Fuji apples? MotoGP is like... crabapples because it's smaller?)
Fourthly (this is getting long, isn't it?), and this is the stock-car racer in me, door-to-door bumper-to-bumper racing is way more exciting than F1 or motorcycle racing to watch and to drive. I love driving a car with precision, but knocking Bubba out of the way with my front bumper and slingshotting around him for position is way more fun than any autox or track day. More expensive, too, though... Don't get me wrong, I LOVE racing in all its forms, but stock car racing has a special place in my heart. Rally is exciting just because the cars and drivers are performing amazing feats of skill and stupidity on a dirt road.
Man, that was about three dollars instead of the two cents I started with... if anybody read that at all, thanks for the stamina.
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 04:15 PM |
Just a note, last I heard that a Nextel Cup engine is only about 35 grand. Where is the other millions spent on each car. I would wager that each car is no more than 100K at most. There is just not that much material there, nor that exotic. Heck the guages are the same I could buy through Summit Racing ! :)
If you can point me to a reference of that I would love to see it, for my own supply of useless information. I know the Subaru rally cars cost pretty close to 550K each, and its full of high tech gizmos that cost a fortune. Just the sequential transmission costs 60K from what they said on Speed.
If you can point me to a reference of that I would love to see it, for my own supply of useless information. I know the Subaru rally cars cost pretty close to 550K each, and its full of high tech gizmos that cost a fortune. Just the sequential transmission costs 60K from what they said on Speed.
| SabreKhan | 06-11-2004 04:30 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SCRAPPYDO[/i]
[B] Just a note, last I heard that a Nextel Cup engine is only about 35 grand. [/B][/QUOTE]
Engine? All put together and tuned? I seriously doubt it. Maybe the block by itself, because that comes straight from the GM, Ford, or Pontiac factory.
[B] Just a note, last I heard that a Nextel Cup engine is only about 35 grand. [/B][/QUOTE]
Engine? All put together and tuned? I seriously doubt it. Maybe the block by itself, because that comes straight from the GM, Ford, or Pontiac factory.
| BriDrive | 06-11-2004 04:45 PM |
Alot of the prices thrown about include enormous R&D costs and overhead not seen.
Per piece costs don't include these additional expenses sometimes, so in the case of the $35,000 engine I suspect this is the case.
Per piece costs don't include these additional expenses sometimes, so in the case of the $35,000 engine I suspect this is the case.
| SCRAPPYDO | 06-11-2004 04:46 PM |
How is a block for an engine 35 grand. When I was building old muscle cars, I could buy a bowtie Block from Chevy for 800 bucks. No WAY a block is 35 grand. They are using edlebrock manifolds (again faily cheap) and Holley Carbs, (Very inexpensive)
I can see with all the man hours to assemble it, and tuning it cant cost much more than 35 grand.
[url]http://www.hendrickmotorsports.com/tech_engine_faq.asp?dept=engine&bhcp=1[/url]
It would appear that I was a tad off... according to Hendrix, the total cost for an engine is 45-60K.
I guess my info was a few years old. But still NO WHERE NEAR the price needed for a total price tag of 2 million...
I can see with all the man hours to assemble it, and tuning it cant cost much more than 35 grand.
[url]http://www.hendrickmotorsports.com/tech_engine_faq.asp?dept=engine&bhcp=1[/url]
It would appear that I was a tad off... according to Hendrix, the total cost for an engine is 45-60K.
I guess my info was a few years old. But still NO WHERE NEAR the price needed for a total price tag of 2 million...
| BriDrive | 06-11-2004 04:58 PM |
When a figure is thrown out: it can include costs such as:
Machining and tooling costs.
Engine personnel.
Annualized costs, such as: "...well, we used 14 engines last year, including 8 rebuilds, and..........."
Raw materials.
Engineering and design costs.
Logistical costs.
The list goes on and on.
Example of how an engine can cost a boatload of money:
Hypothetical, of course...........This would be just machinery cost.
Ford Motor Company brings online a machining and tooling process to produce a domestic V8 engine to be placed in 6 different lines of cars. Cost: $28,000,000
Sell 150,000 vehicles with this motor and the machining cost is:$187 per motor.
Cosworth retools and machines to meet new v10 F1 criteria circa 2000. Cost: $8,500,000
Builds or rebuilds 32 engines for its 2 car team for a season.
Cost: machining cost alone: $265,625 per motor
Economies of scale...........................
Now you wonder why someone like Cobb has to outsource casting of a downpipe.
BriDrive
Machining and tooling costs.
Engine personnel.
Annualized costs, such as: "...well, we used 14 engines last year, including 8 rebuilds, and..........."
Raw materials.
Engineering and design costs.
Logistical costs.
The list goes on and on.
Example of how an engine can cost a boatload of money:
Hypothetical, of course...........This would be just machinery cost.
Ford Motor Company brings online a machining and tooling process to produce a domestic V8 engine to be placed in 6 different lines of cars. Cost: $28,000,000
Sell 150,000 vehicles with this motor and the machining cost is:$187 per motor.
Cosworth retools and machines to meet new v10 F1 criteria circa 2000. Cost: $8,500,000
Builds or rebuilds 32 engines for its 2 car team for a season.
Cost: machining cost alone: $265,625 per motor
Economies of scale...........................
Now you wonder why someone like Cobb has to outsource casting of a downpipe.
BriDrive
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 05:52 PM |
45 to 60k for a production race engine. The bigger teams have customers they supply too. This does not include the latest and greatest tricks the main team is using and also the R&D costs are amortised thoughout the build.
I know Penkse racing south builds in the range of 20 to 30 motors that have to be dynoed and ready to go by the Tues before the race. Lotsa work. Anywho their is nothing wrong with cost effective racing.
One other thing to remember is Nascar is packing up close to 40 weekends every year to race. It takes alot of man hours to keep that 'circus' ruinning. No time for rest.
I know Penkse racing south builds in the range of 20 to 30 motors that have to be dynoed and ready to go by the Tues before the race. Lotsa work. Anywho their is nothing wrong with cost effective racing.
One other thing to remember is Nascar is packing up close to 40 weekends every year to race. It takes alot of man hours to keep that 'circus' ruinning. No time for rest.
| ChrisW | 06-11-2004 09:49 PM |
eh? who cares about a single nascrap car running a 228 lap?
Now I would be impressed if that speed was attained with 42 other cars on the track....
Hell, I might even start watching nascrap racing if they get rid of the restrictor plates.
Now I would be impressed if that speed was attained with 42 other cars on the track....
Hell, I might even start watching nascrap racing if they get rid of the restrictor plates.
| Hondaslayer | 06-11-2004 10:33 PM |
NASCAR lost my respect when all the cars became the same.
Change the rules big time. Make them go to a dealership, buy a freaking car and modify that. When a stock chassis Monte Carlo goes 230 mph, then I will be impressed. Take it back to the old days.
<- Watches old NASCAR on speed, refuses to watch the current crap.
Change the rules big time. Make them go to a dealership, buy a freaking car and modify that. When a stock chassis Monte Carlo goes 230 mph, then I will be impressed. Take it back to the old days.
<- Watches old NASCAR on speed, refuses to watch the current crap.
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 11:04 PM |
a stock chassis monte would be death trap on a race course.
The reason they make full tube frame cars, other being able to deal with the high race loads is saftey.
The reason they make full tube frame cars, other being able to deal with the high race loads is saftey.
| Hondaslayer | 06-11-2004 11:10 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bonzo [/i]
[B]a stock chassis monte would be death trap on a race course.
The reason they make full tube frame cars, other being able to deal with the high race loads is saftey. [/B][/QUOTE]
They didn't have a problem running them 30 yrs ago.
Lower the speeds or change the name, There's nothing Stock about these Stock Cars.
[B]a stock chassis monte would be death trap on a race course.
The reason they make full tube frame cars, other being able to deal with the high race loads is saftey. [/B][/QUOTE]
They didn't have a problem running them 30 yrs ago.
Lower the speeds or change the name, There's nothing Stock about these Stock Cars.
| Bonzo | 06-11-2004 11:17 PM |
umm, alot has changed in racing in 30 years. Namely saftey, which I believe is a good thing.
Thanks for your time. This thread has taken its course.
Thanks for your time. This thread has taken its course.
| Hondaslayer | 06-11-2004 11:21 PM |
Safety is a good thing, But there comes a point when the cars are not cars anymore. Those are billboards with taurus/monte-carlo headlamps.At least make them look like what they are supposed to.
| Hondaslayer | 06-11-2004 11:23 PM |
[IMG]http://www.erc.msstate.edu/~roger/nascar/images/petty70.jpg[/IMG]
The end of an era.
The end of an era.
| wrx2.0 555 | 06-12-2004 07:38 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by hondaslayer [/i]
[B]The end of an era. [/B][/QUOTE]
The end of this thread.
[B]The end of an era. [/B][/QUOTE]
The end of this thread.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét