| Rodan | 11-03-2002 06:47 PM |
Pug WRC puts out 580lb-ft of torque.
I was shocked when I heard that. Nicky Grist made that comment on last nights day 2 coverage. How impressive is that considering the 2ltr power plant?
| johnfelstead | 11-03-2002 08:38 PM |
what is impresive is that they get that much torque with a 34mm turbo restrictor. That isnt a HUGE amount for an unrestricted 2 litre turbo engine, not bad though. ;)
They will all be in the range of 500lb/ft upwards, even the Skoda! Club Level Escort Cosworths are over 450Lb/ft.
They will all be in the range of 500lb/ft upwards, even the Skoda! Club Level Escort Cosworths are over 450Lb/ft.
| driggity | 11-04-2002 12:00 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]They will all be in the range of 500lb/ft upwards, even the Skoda! Club Level Escort Cosworths are over 450Lb/ft. [/B][/QUOTE]
From the way Nicky was talking it sounded like the other WRC cars are down between 70 and 100 lb/ft compared to the Pugs. He seemed to think that this was the major reason for their dominance this year.
[B]They will all be in the range of 500lb/ft upwards, even the Skoda! Club Level Escort Cosworths are over 450Lb/ft. [/B][/QUOTE]
From the way Nicky was talking it sounded like the other WRC cars are down between 70 and 100 lb/ft compared to the Pugs. He seemed to think that this was the major reason for their dominance this year.
| johnfelstead | 11-04-2002 04:15 PM |
not a chance they are that far ahead. 20-30lb/ft is feasable if they found something very special. I would expect the Subaru/Mitsubishi and Ford engine to be pretty close, Skoda and Hyundai less so.
| jmott | 11-04-2002 04:19 PM |
Re: Pug WRC puts out 580lb-ft of torque.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rodan [/i]
[B]I was shocked when I heard that. Nicky Grist made that comment on last nights day 2 coverage. How impressive is that considering the 2ltr power plant? [/B][/QUOTE]
dont f1 cars put out about that much without a turbo and 2 liters or less?
[B]I was shocked when I heard that. Nicky Grist made that comment on last nights day 2 coverage. How impressive is that considering the 2ltr power plant? [/B][/QUOTE]
dont f1 cars put out about that much without a turbo and 2 liters or less?
| grimlock | 11-04-2002 05:08 PM |
Re: Re: Pug WRC puts out 580lb-ft of torque.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jmott [/i]
[B]
dont f1 cars put out about that much without a turbo and 2 liters or less? [/B][/QUOTE]
No. Given that a modern 3-liter V10 F1 engine has a HP peak of somewhere around 850 and a redline of ~18000 RPM, the equation tells us that it's making somewhere in the vicinity of 250 lb/ft at 18000. That's going to be off somewhat because we don't know what the curves look like, but it's probably in the neighborhood.
F1 engines and WRC engines are almost complete opposites. WRC engines have restricted horsepower because of the turbo inlet restrictor. F1 engines have restricted torque because their displacement and number of cylinders is fixed.
Ross N.
P.S. Mr. Felstead will be along directly to point a spotlight at whatever I said wrong, so just wait for him.
[B]
dont f1 cars put out about that much without a turbo and 2 liters or less? [/B][/QUOTE]
No. Given that a modern 3-liter V10 F1 engine has a HP peak of somewhere around 850 and a redline of ~18000 RPM, the equation tells us that it's making somewhere in the vicinity of 250 lb/ft at 18000. That's going to be off somewhat because we don't know what the curves look like, but it's probably in the neighborhood.
F1 engines and WRC engines are almost complete opposites. WRC engines have restricted horsepower because of the turbo inlet restrictor. F1 engines have restricted torque because their displacement and number of cylinders is fixed.
Ross N.
P.S. Mr. Felstead will be along directly to point a spotlight at whatever I said wrong, so just wait for him.
| johnfelstead | 11-04-2002 05:39 PM |
thats about right Grimlock.
F1 engines broke the 19,000 rpm limit this year! :eek:
The only way to increase power with a limited capacity and being Normaly Aspirated after you have optimised cam design, head flow etc is to increase the RPM.
The higher you take the RPM the more apart the power/torque figures get.
WRC engines dont rev much above 7000rpm and do their best work in the 3500-6000rpm range, the really late spec wrc engines are running very high compresion, our own club spec GroupA engine is running 9.4:1 compresion, which goes against what is traditional for a turbo engine, but you have to run this to cope with a restricted turbo inlet. Without the restrictor our engine would produce about the same torque but over 500BHP, with teh restrictor we run 330BHP so you use the torque in the lower rev range.
F1 engines broke the 19,000 rpm limit this year! :eek:
The only way to increase power with a limited capacity and being Normaly Aspirated after you have optimised cam design, head flow etc is to increase the RPM.
The higher you take the RPM the more apart the power/torque figures get.
WRC engines dont rev much above 7000rpm and do their best work in the 3500-6000rpm range, the really late spec wrc engines are running very high compresion, our own club spec GroupA engine is running 9.4:1 compresion, which goes against what is traditional for a turbo engine, but you have to run this to cope with a restricted turbo inlet. Without the restrictor our engine would produce about the same torque but over 500BHP, with teh restrictor we run 330BHP so you use the torque in the lower rev range.
| EJ20K | 11-04-2002 09:06 PM |
question for John F.
John I though that WRC engines made around 310 HP, probably alot of torque but HP was limited because of the air restrictor ..... are you 100% sure about you guys getting 320HP on you rally car using the 34mm air restrictor ?????
| Midwayman | 11-05-2002 12:56 AM |
Additionally I heard that the US pro-rally car is making more power than the WRC cars. (From restrictor differances I understand)
| dwx | 11-05-2002 01:13 AM |
They can put out more horsepower than the WRC cars since they run a 40mm restrictor in open class. Most of the cars aren't as well developed as a WRC car (for obvious cost reasons). When Subaru brought over a WRC car last year to run a few events, it wasn't even close.
| MGXsport | 11-05-2002 02:25 AM |
Can they play with the restrictor as in the way it is shaped?
Chris
Chris
| EJ20K | 11-05-2002 10:48 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Midwayman [/i]
[B]Additionally I heard that the US pro-rally car is making more power than the WRC cars. (From restrictor differances I understand) [/B][/QUOTE]
yep ..... but not even near the same torque levels ;)
[B]Additionally I heard that the US pro-rally car is making more power than the WRC cars. (From restrictor differances I understand) [/B][/QUOTE]
yep ..... but not even near the same torque levels ;)
| ChrisW | 11-05-2002 11:16 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]what is impresive is that they get that much torque with a 34mm turbo restrictor. That isnt a HUGE amount for an unrestricted 2 litre turbo engine, not bad though. ;)
They will all be in the range of 500lb/ft upwards, even the Skoda! Club Level Escort Cosworths are over 450Lb/ft. [/B][/QUOTE]
from what nicky grist was saying, he said that the restrictor actually helped generate more torgue and wasn't limiting the overall engine performance that much.
[B]what is impresive is that they get that much torque with a 34mm turbo restrictor. That isnt a HUGE amount for an unrestricted 2 litre turbo engine, not bad though. ;)
They will all be in the range of 500lb/ft upwards, even the Skoda! Club Level Escort Cosworths are over 450Lb/ft. [/B][/QUOTE]
from what nicky grist was saying, he said that the restrictor actually helped generate more torgue and wasn't limiting the overall engine performance that much.
| johnfelstead | 11-05-2002 11:52 AM |
yep, positive we have 330BHP. You should be able to get over 400BHP from a 40mm restrictor. The FIA mandated 300BHP as a limit, thats why you see 300BHP listed in the car specs, the reality is slightly diferent.
What Nicky would have meant was that they concentrate on engine torque more than power when working with a restricted turbo engine so that area of engine development has improved. If they took the restrictors off these engines, trust me, they would be well over 600BHP with diferent cams and turbos and maps. Restricting the turbo isnt helping produce torque, it's just moved development in that field forward.
I just wish one day they scrap the current setup and go for mid engined, NA V6 2.5 litre screemers, now that would look/sound awesome!
What Nicky would have meant was that they concentrate on engine torque more than power when working with a restricted turbo engine so that area of engine development has improved. If they took the restrictors off these engines, trust me, they would be well over 600BHP with diferent cams and turbos and maps. Restricting the turbo isnt helping produce torque, it's just moved development in that field forward.
I just wish one day they scrap the current setup and go for mid engined, NA V6 2.5 litre screemers, now that would look/sound awesome!
| EJ20K | 11-05-2002 12:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]yep, positive we have 330BHP. You should be able to get over 400BHP from a 40mm restrictor. The FIA mandated 300BHP as a limit, thats why you see 300BHP listed in the car specs, the reality is slightly diferent.
What Nicky would have meant was that they concentrate on engine torque more than power when working with a restricted turbo engine so that area of engine development has improved. If they took the restrictors off these engines, trust me, they would be well over 600BHP with diferent cams and turbos and maps. Restricting the turbo isnt helping produce torque, it's just moved development in that field forward.
I just wish one day they scrap the current setup and go for mid engined, NA V6 2.5 litre screemers, now that would look/sound awesome! [/B][/QUOTE]
John,
So how much power (HP's) are the top team WRC engines making ? with the FIA grp. A 34mm air restrictor :confused:
[B]yep, positive we have 330BHP. You should be able to get over 400BHP from a 40mm restrictor. The FIA mandated 300BHP as a limit, thats why you see 300BHP listed in the car specs, the reality is slightly diferent.
What Nicky would have meant was that they concentrate on engine torque more than power when working with a restricted turbo engine so that area of engine development has improved. If they took the restrictors off these engines, trust me, they would be well over 600BHP with diferent cams and turbos and maps. Restricting the turbo isnt helping produce torque, it's just moved development in that field forward.
I just wish one day they scrap the current setup and go for mid engined, NA V6 2.5 litre screemers, now that would look/sound awesome! [/B][/QUOTE]
John,
So how much power (HP's) are the top team WRC engines making ? with the FIA grp. A 34mm air restrictor :confused:
| johnfelstead | 11-05-2002 12:09 PM |
Its going to be pretty much what we have as the airflow rate is the limiting factor to power, thats why restrictors work. These engines have a very flat torque curve around 3000rpm to 5000rpm then it starts to tail off. You have to drive them diferently to an unrestricted engine, if you rev the nuts off them you get nowhere fast.
| EJ20K | 11-05-2002 12:15 PM |
thanx John, now I got a better idea.
So a WRC engine should be around:
330 flywheel HP
65 kgm.f Torque
usable powerband between 3000 - 6000 rpm, but at what boost levels do they get this sort of power ????? (promise this is the last question ;))
So a WRC engine should be around:
330 flywheel HP
65 kgm.f Torque
usable powerband between 3000 - 6000 rpm, but at what boost levels do they get this sort of power ????? (promise this is the last question ;))
| johnfelstead | 11-05-2002 12:29 PM |
the WRC engines are not built in the same way as a traditional turbo engine. Normally, as you up the boost/power you lower the compresion ratio. With a restricted turbo engine you do the complete oposite, you up the compresion ratio to make it less reliant on turbo boost. Also the boost curves are totally diferent, you control the boost to be very high in the 2500-5000rpm range and then you make it reduce as the revs increase to stop the turbo going supersonic as the airflow increases.
To do all this requires very acurate waste gate control, the latest spec WRC engines have gone back to external waste gates and use very acurate airflow valves to control this wastegate. Our own setup still has an inbuilt wastegate and we use a couple of fuel injectors, uses as air valves to control the waste gate actuator. You basically pulse these to provide the airflow required, it's very acurate. We are running about 2.5 BAR (36psi) boost in the lower revs and letting this tail off as the revs rise.
I dont know the boost levels the current spec WRC engines are producing, but our own engine spec is what was used in the last Escort WRC's that Msport ran so its going to be fairly close to the mark, we just dont run it so on the edge. Incedently we have to run special high octane FIA spec fuel, normal super unleaded would melt it. (we have a second map for running it on 98RON as a get out of the **** mode). Our own engine is 9.4:1 CR, i would think the current spec engines are higher than this.
To do all this requires very acurate waste gate control, the latest spec WRC engines have gone back to external waste gates and use very acurate airflow valves to control this wastegate. Our own setup still has an inbuilt wastegate and we use a couple of fuel injectors, uses as air valves to control the waste gate actuator. You basically pulse these to provide the airflow required, it's very acurate. We are running about 2.5 BAR (36psi) boost in the lower revs and letting this tail off as the revs rise.
I dont know the boost levels the current spec WRC engines are producing, but our own engine spec is what was used in the last Escort WRC's that Msport ran so its going to be fairly close to the mark, we just dont run it so on the edge. Incedently we have to run special high octane FIA spec fuel, normal super unleaded would melt it. (we have a second map for running it on 98RON as a get out of the **** mode). Our own engine is 9.4:1 CR, i would think the current spec engines are higher than this.
| XT6Wagon | 11-05-2002 12:49 PM |
Restrictors limit HP not torque. So to maximize accleration you have to make the AVG HP across the powerband as close to that Max HP as possible. This means that if 300 is the theoretical limit of the restrictor, then you need to have 300HP from as low an RPM as possible then on upto redline. Since HP=torqueXrpm/5250 this means the torque at 300HP and 3K rpm will be quite high.
| Jewbaru | 11-05-2002 01:02 PM |
I heard the Subaru WRC car runs ~45psi down low like John mentioned, then trails off to 9psi at redline.
| 97itr153 | 11-05-2002 04:15 PM |
WRC = Downward sloping torque curve
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]These engines have a very flat torque curve around 3000rpm to 5000rpm then it starts to tail off. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, WRC car torque curves are downward sloping in the 3000 to 5000 rpm range. Let's look at the Peugeot WRC car for example.
300 bhp
580 lbs/ft
5252*300/580 = 2717 rpm
This means that peak torque MUST arrive at NO HIGHER than 2717 rpms. In order for this car as fast as possible, the torque must drop in proportion to the increase in rpm. What you end up with then is a FLAT POWER CURVE. This means that the driver can pick any shift point as long as he always stays on the FLAT part of the POWER CURVE.
If this car were to make the same amount of TORQUE at 3000 rpm and 5000 rpm (flat torque curve), then there will be a lot of wasted torque especially around 3000 rpm.
This example is for illustration purposes only and therefore will NOT imitate reality exactly...but you get the idea.
:cool:
[B]These engines have a very flat torque curve around 3000rpm to 5000rpm then it starts to tail off. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, WRC car torque curves are downward sloping in the 3000 to 5000 rpm range. Let's look at the Peugeot WRC car for example.
300 bhp
580 lbs/ft
5252*300/580 = 2717 rpm
This means that peak torque MUST arrive at NO HIGHER than 2717 rpms. In order for this car as fast as possible, the torque must drop in proportion to the increase in rpm. What you end up with then is a FLAT POWER CURVE. This means that the driver can pick any shift point as long as he always stays on the FLAT part of the POWER CURVE.
If this car were to make the same amount of TORQUE at 3000 rpm and 5000 rpm (flat torque curve), then there will be a lot of wasted torque especially around 3000 rpm.
This example is for illustration purposes only and therefore will NOT imitate reality exactly...but you get the idea.
:cool:
| Carlos Fandango | 11-06-2002 10:37 AM |
I would like to know who crowned johnfelstead as a tuning guru?
and what kind of car is a wrx sti5 type ra v lim? is that like a 22b or something?
and what kind of car is a wrx sti5 type ra v lim? is that like a 22b or something?
| BOY | 11-06-2002 10:56 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Carlos Fandango [/i]
[B]I would like to know who crowned johnfelstead as a tuning guru?
and what kind of car is a wrx sti5 type ra v lim? is that like a 22b or something? [/B][/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Anyway, the same technique is being used in Cobb's conebasher. The compression is still 9 or 9.5:1 and the boost is relatively low. The logic behind the decision was to make grunt for the tight corners of the auto-x where if they relied on boost for power they'd be in lag-land.
[B]I would like to know who crowned johnfelstead as a tuning guru?
and what kind of car is a wrx sti5 type ra v lim? is that like a 22b or something? [/B][/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Anyway, the same technique is being used in Cobb's conebasher. The compression is still 9 or 9.5:1 and the boost is relatively low. The logic behind the decision was to make grunt for the tight corners of the auto-x where if they relied on boost for power they'd be in lag-land.
| Carlos Fandango | 11-06-2002 11:05 AM |
whats wrong with my post?
I seriously want to know how he got the red writing underneath his name which says tuning guru.
is that such a silly request?
I seriously want to know how he got the red writing underneath his name which says tuning guru.
is that such a silly request?
| Jaxx | 11-06-2002 11:26 AM |
yes newbie...
it is
john = rally/racing/engine super guru
it is
john = rally/racing/engine super guru
| BOY | 11-06-2002 12:10 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaxx [/i]
[B]yes newbie...
it is
john = rally/racing/engine super guru [/B][/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.ryanoneil.com/forum/images/smiles/new_rofl.gif[/img]
Carlos=[IMG]http://www.ryanoneil.com/forum/images/smiles/new_newbie.gif[/IMG]
[B]yes newbie...
it is
john = rally/racing/engine super guru [/B][/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.ryanoneil.com/forum/images/smiles/new_rofl.gif[/img]
Carlos=[IMG]http://www.ryanoneil.com/forum/images/smiles/new_newbie.gif[/IMG]
| PaulC | 11-06-2002 12:17 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Carlos Fandango [/i]
[B]whats wrong with my post?
I seriously want to know how he got the red writing underneath his name which says tuning guru.
is that such a silly request? [/B][/QUOTE]
He got the red writing because he IS a tuning guru. Or at least plays one on i-club.
Regardless of his actual credentials he's a super nice guy, has tons of good advice that he dispenses with humility and writes awesome Nurburgring reports. Do a search on his name + nurburgring for some good reading.
Everyone was a newbie once...
[B]whats wrong with my post?
I seriously want to know how he got the red writing underneath his name which says tuning guru.
is that such a silly request? [/B][/QUOTE]
He got the red writing because he IS a tuning guru. Or at least plays one on i-club.
Regardless of his actual credentials he's a super nice guy, has tons of good advice that he dispenses with humility and writes awesome Nurburgring reports. Do a search on his name + nurburgring for some good reading.
Everyone was a newbie once...
| BOY | 11-06-2002 12:38 PM |
Carlos, sorry if i seemed crass with my newbie smilies (I just like using different smilies and you just happened to be on the receiving end). Seriously though, please consider using the search function or asking admitedly newbie questions offline via email/pm. It will save you a lot of flaming on the other forums.
| Bonzo | 11-06-2002 01:04 PM |
Since John F. is a tuning guru I must assume he then works in the design, testing and engineering of this field. Correct? I m not saying JF does not know a lot just wanting to put this in perspective.
Enough of this n00b $hit. No one has no idea who is on the other end of the keyboard. N00b is just a title. BTW I used to be a speccy but they are to full of ego so I demoted myself so I can have an open mind and ask inteligent questions versus just a follower.;)
97itr153 had the same question I was pondering. Torque peak has to be very low and drop dramatically to keep hp peak within restricted levels.
Bonzo Morretti:)
Enough of this n00b $hit. No one has no idea who is on the other end of the keyboard. N00b is just a title. BTW I used to be a speccy but they are to full of ego so I demoted myself so I can have an open mind and ask inteligent questions versus just a follower.;)
97itr153 had the same question I was pondering. Torque peak has to be very low and drop dramatically to keep hp peak within restricted levels.
Bonzo Morretti:)
| johnfelstead | 11-06-2002 01:33 PM |
the truth is i paid nick $10K because i needed the red letters to boost my ego, i feel inadequate without them.
A WRX STi5 TypeRA V-Ltd is a Japanese only model, the STi stands for Subaru Technica International, the tuning arm of Fuji Heavy Industries/Subaru. The 5 means its a version 5 (1999-2000 model). Type RA means Race Altered. Its a lightweight homologation special with lots of specialist components designed for rallying. It has bigger driveshafts, bigger wheel bearings, bigger brakes, bigger rear limited slip diferential, an electronically controlled centre limited slip diferential, a mechanical front limited slip diferential, a high ratio steering rack, 300PS engine (280BHP) that revs to 8200rpm. close ratio gearbox and lower final drive ratio. Larger intercooler with automatic water sprays, No ABS, aluminium bonnet, thinner glass, roof vent, need i go on?
The V-Ltd means its a limited edition version with some of the luzuries installed such as fully automatic climate control, special SWRT front seats, electric pack etc. They made 1000 of these.
This is what it looks like.
[img]http://www.btinternet.com/~john.felstead/STi5/ringjuly2002/STi5ring3.jpg[/img]
A WRX STi5 TypeRA V-Ltd is a Japanese only model, the STi stands for Subaru Technica International, the tuning arm of Fuji Heavy Industries/Subaru. The 5 means its a version 5 (1999-2000 model). Type RA means Race Altered. Its a lightweight homologation special with lots of specialist components designed for rallying. It has bigger driveshafts, bigger wheel bearings, bigger brakes, bigger rear limited slip diferential, an electronically controlled centre limited slip diferential, a mechanical front limited slip diferential, a high ratio steering rack, 300PS engine (280BHP) that revs to 8200rpm. close ratio gearbox and lower final drive ratio. Larger intercooler with automatic water sprays, No ABS, aluminium bonnet, thinner glass, roof vent, need i go on?
The V-Ltd means its a limited edition version with some of the luzuries installed such as fully automatic climate control, special SWRT front seats, electric pack etc. They made 1000 of these.
This is what it looks like.
[img]http://www.btinternet.com/~john.felstead/STi5/ringjuly2002/STi5ring3.jpg[/img]
| Skyline | 11-06-2002 01:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]the truth is i paid nick $10K because i needed the red letters to boost my ego, i feel inadequate without them.
....
This is what it looks like.
....
[/B][/QUOTE]
:lol: *drool* Very very nice.. :)
[B]the truth is i paid nick $10K because i needed the red letters to boost my ego, i feel inadequate without them.
....
This is what it looks like.
....
[/B][/QUOTE]
:lol: *drool* Very very nice.. :)
| Gravel Spray | 11-06-2002 01:50 PM |
Kinda makes the US spec WRX look like a hunk-a-junk.
and John is a guru..............
pete
and John is a guru..............
pete
| BOY | 11-06-2002 02:06 PM |
To answer the "What is an STI ver%..." question simply: Its a real car ;)
| EJ20K | 11-06-2002 02:27 PM |
yep it is the "real" thing ..... :D
EJ20K
(proud owner of a STi ver 4 RA)
EJ20K
(proud owner of a STi ver 4 RA)
| BOY | 11-06-2002 02:34 PM |
OK, 'nuff bragging (turbo envy growing) ;)
| Tim K. | 11-06-2002 04:12 PM |
And here I thought John was a useless drunk. Now I know he is a drunk and a guru! I feel better now... :lol:
| BOY | 11-06-2002 04:32 PM |
lol
| Carlos Fandango | 11-06-2002 07:39 PM |
guys, it was a joke, and I was trying to get a response out of jf who I know very well,although he doesnt know that I do.
perhaps a clue might help him.
john, tell me, exactly what kind of mechanical limited slip front diff do you have, becuase as far as I understand it, there arent many more types than torsen, clutch type. Since you say it isnt viscous, what is left?
so an sti 5 type ra v limited is a real car is it?
is it more real than a 22B? ;)
sorry for the deception john , I really did want to know how you got the red letters.
perhaps a clue might help him.
john, tell me, exactly what kind of mechanical limited slip front diff do you have, becuase as far as I understand it, there arent many more types than torsen, clutch type. Since you say it isnt viscous, what is left?
so an sti 5 type ra v limited is a real car is it?
is it more real than a 22B? ;)
sorry for the deception john , I really did want to know how you got the red letters.
| ChefAaron | 11-06-2002 07:52 PM |
WOW
�
�
That is an amazing car. to bad it's left side drive. LOL
what would you guess the weight is on that fine automobile ?
I bet the thinner windows reduce it a bit.
( could be a Quaife ) just a guess .
what would you guess the weight is on that fine automobile ?
I bet the thinner windows reduce it a bit.
( could be a Quaife ) just a guess .
| Javabean2 | 11-07-2002 12:10 AM |
Back to an old topic, but I thought a lot of the Pug's advantage over the last year was the use of hydraulically adjustable strut braces (something like the new 7-series)?
| Javabean2 | 11-07-2002 12:10 AM |
Back to an old topic, but I thought a lot of the Pug's advantage over the last year was the use of hydraulically adjustable strut braces (something like the new 7-series)?
| [email�protected] | 11-12-2002 01:40 PM |
[url=http://www.motorsportvortex.com/features/pug_206/pug_206.html]Here[/url] is a good story on the current 206 WRC car. Has a lot of details and how the car is put together along with a little history.
The WRC supposedly limits the HP numbers to around 300hp via restrictors, however, it is known that they produce a little more than the rated 300 that all the cars give. But like others said, with the restrictors designed to limit the hp numbers and without any real room for development here, the manufacturers can put all the concentration into developing torque and other parts of the engine and car. This is obviously where Peugeot has leapfrogged past most of the rest of the field.
One interesting thing, Nicky mentioned that Peugeot was using a 5 speed box, but the article mentions a six speed which replaced the 5 speed from 2001. They must have found this not to be an advantage and switched back to the 5 during the season as the article was written from info released at the beginning of 2002.
The WRC supposedly limits the HP numbers to around 300hp via restrictors, however, it is known that they produce a little more than the rated 300 that all the cars give. But like others said, with the restrictors designed to limit the hp numbers and without any real room for development here, the manufacturers can put all the concentration into developing torque and other parts of the engine and car. This is obviously where Peugeot has leapfrogged past most of the rest of the field.
One interesting thing, Nicky mentioned that Peugeot was using a 5 speed box, but the article mentions a six speed which replaced the 5 speed from 2001. They must have found this not to be an advantage and switched back to the 5 during the season as the article was written from info released at the beginning of 2002.
| [email�protected] | 11-12-2002 01:43 PM |
Interesting paragraph from the article above. Cant have that much torque if you cannot get it to the ground. This is another place that the Peugeot could be gaining so much of its advantage.
[QUOTE]The rest of the drivetrain consists of three very important parts. The hydro-electronically controlled differentials. One in the center right behind the gearbox, one at the front wheels and one at the rear wheels. These are designed to distribute all the power possible to the wheels without causing them to lose grip. While in the older cars wheelspin was controlled by cutting power from the engine, the new car�s system allows for the power to be used more efficiently. These differentials act directly on the affected spinning axle by slowly locking it until the spinning is under control and the torque to the wheel is ideal. In this way the impact on the engine�s output is not affected nearly as much, therefore allowing more of that power to be transmitted to the ground.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The rest of the drivetrain consists of three very important parts. The hydro-electronically controlled differentials. One in the center right behind the gearbox, one at the front wheels and one at the rear wheels. These are designed to distribute all the power possible to the wheels without causing them to lose grip. While in the older cars wheelspin was controlled by cutting power from the engine, the new car�s system allows for the power to be used more efficiently. These differentials act directly on the affected spinning axle by slowly locking it until the spinning is under control and the torque to the wheel is ideal. In this way the impact on the engine�s output is not affected nearly as much, therefore allowing more of that power to be transmitted to the ground.[/QUOTE]
| Ferg | 11-13-2002 09:03 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]I just wish one day they scrap the current setup and go for mid engined, NA V6 2.5 litre screemers, now that would look/sound awesome! [/B][/QUOTE]
Sounds like someone has a Metro fetish :lol: :lol:
John, assuming that todays crop of WRCs continue to push speeds higher and higher, what do you think the FIA should do to go about slowing them down without losing any of the spectacle?
We're going to be knocking on Group B speeds soon I fear...
Ferg
[B]I just wish one day they scrap the current setup and go for mid engined, NA V6 2.5 litre screemers, now that would look/sound awesome! [/B][/QUOTE]
Sounds like someone has a Metro fetish :lol: :lol:
John, assuming that todays crop of WRCs continue to push speeds higher and higher, what do you think the FIA should do to go about slowing them down without losing any of the spectacle?
We're going to be knocking on Group B speeds soon I fear...
Ferg
| Ferg | 11-15-2002 09:31 AM |
bump for Mr. Felstead :D
Ferg
Ferg
| BOY | 11-15-2002 09:55 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ferg [/i]
[B]
Sounds like someone has a Metro fetish :lol: :lol:
John, assuming that todays crop of WRCs continue to push speeds higher and higher, what do you think the FIA should do to go about slowing them down without losing any of the spectacle?
We're going to be knocking on Group B speeds soon I fear...
Ferg [/B][/QUOTE]
IIRC the problem with Gp B was that people started dying (drivers and fans). I'd think that as long as the cars stay on the road FIA should let the limits be pushed. Considering that suspension tuning, tire technology, etc are infinitly better than they were back in the Gp B days, I say lets see what the manufacturers can do.
[B]
Sounds like someone has a Metro fetish :lol: :lol:
John, assuming that todays crop of WRCs continue to push speeds higher and higher, what do you think the FIA should do to go about slowing them down without losing any of the spectacle?
We're going to be knocking on Group B speeds soon I fear...
Ferg [/B][/QUOTE]
IIRC the problem with Gp B was that people started dying (drivers and fans). I'd think that as long as the cars stay on the road FIA should let the limits be pushed. Considering that suspension tuning, tire technology, etc are infinitly better than they were back in the Gp B days, I say lets see what the manufacturers can do.
| Ferg | 11-15-2002 10:33 AM |
Very true. And of course crowd control is many times more effective than it was during the Killer B days. Although the recent round of big shunts makes me worry that some kneejerk reaction by the FIA is possible.
Remember after Senna died, they put a chicane at Eau Rouge...I would hate to see Corsica or San Remo get the boot because the cars simply become to fast again.
Does anyone have a link to the current FIA rules for the WRC?
Ferg
Remember after Senna died, they put a chicane at Eau Rouge...I would hate to see Corsica or San Remo get the boot because the cars simply become to fast again.
Does anyone have a link to the current FIA rules for the WRC?
Ferg
| grimlock | 11-15-2002 11:21 AM |
Sporting Regulations:
[url]http://www.fia.com/Reglements-sportifs/Rallyes-2002-a.htm[/url]
That's all I've got.
Ross N.
[url]http://www.fia.com/Reglements-sportifs/Rallyes-2002-a.htm[/url]
That's all I've got.
Ross N.
| elgorey | 11-15-2002 12:13 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ferg [/i]
[B]We're going to be knocking on Group B speeds soon I fear...[/B][/QUOTE]
[i]but[/i] we are light years ahead of the group B days in tires, chassis, and saftey.
[B]We're going to be knocking on Group B speeds soon I fear...[/B][/QUOTE]
[i]but[/i] we are light years ahead of the group B days in tires, chassis, and saftey.
| Rattler | 11-17-2002 08:43 AM |
[QUOTE]And of course crowd control is many times more effective than it was during the Killer B days.[/QUOTE]
There is a clip in the "Too Fast To Race" video where a guy leaps up and one of the Audi Quattros go under him.
There is a clip in the "Too Fast To Race" video where a guy leaps up and one of the Audi Quattros go under him.
| snyper784 | 01-28-2003 10:44 PM |
I just thought of something that has been bugging me for a while. What diameter piping do the wrc cars use. Also, is one wanted to make a car with 330 bhp, and 500 torque, would you need a 3" exhaust, or would 2.5" be enough. I know that power will be greater on a turbo car with bigger exhaust (at least at higher horsepower levels), but will torque be limited also. This is likely something I should already know, being an auto student and all. Oh well. Thanks.
| grimlock | 01-29-2003 10:06 AM |
You're never getting massive air in because of the intake restrictor, so you don't need huge exhaust either. 2.5 would probably be bigger than you'd want.
| Eric SS | 01-29-2003 11:23 AM |
:eek: :eek:
I'll take that much torque please!
Eric
I'll take that much torque please!
Eric
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét