Jump to content

hoffman900

Registered User
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No that just sounds like bad shock tuning.
  2. Peter Wright also with the explanation:
  3. They had a different set up. It’s documented everywhere. Adrian Newey absolutely needs a wind tunnel and cfd. Also, I always think it’s a bit disingenuous he gets all the credit when he is dealing with nearly 1000 engineers across RB and their suppliers.
  4. Thanks for the image! A lot of people give Adrian Newey credit on RB’s side right now, but he was only 23yo when they got rid of tunnels in F1 and he was in Indy Car until 1985. Tunnels were used there but the tools were really rudimentary. I think from the chassis side of things, RB’s technical partnership Multimatic helps a lot, especially with their CART/Indy and WEC/IMSA experience. Obviously, it still stems from an aero issue. I found a post from a former F1 aerodynamicist some years ago talking about Karman Vortex induced oscillations in regards to the front
  5. That was a long time ago now (a decade ago). I think George is willing to go with whatever the engineers give him at this point where Lewis, as he has gotten older, is more of an Alain Prost type, and seems to have a lot more input into the setup. It did work better on hard tires later in the race, with Lewis running the same times as George on 20-some lap old hards to George’s fresh mediums. The problem is they are setting up around this porpoising issue, so a lot of what they are learning now won’t hold true when/if they get the car working.
  6. Correlation issues. There has been much talk about what causes porpoising. The F1 media talking heads attribute it to the air stalling, by a PhD Aerodynamicist I am friends with said on day 1 at Barcelona is that is caused by vortex shedding (Karman Vortex street) inducing resonance into the chassis and aligning with the frequency of the suspension to cause it. Jean-Claude Migeot was the only talking head to comment on this, and James Allison later said as much when he said the F1 media-sphere was incorrect. The problem is these things cannot be seen in CFD. CFD does not handle turb
  7. I don’t build engines and am busy with another project. It would likely be the same or more expensive. More expensive because you are stuck with stock rocker arms, so you’re going to have to go with proprietary lobe designs and cam core to get the lift you need, vs being able to likely use an off the shelf lobe design (say from an older NASCAR application). Everything else is all going to be custom anyway. Less compression isn’t always a bad thing. Anything with more than a flat top is a compromise in terms of combustion efficiency… does the increase compression offset comp
  8. Engine dynos are just as variable. Sweep rate alone on a water brake will change things. Chris, I doubt they do. It's not hard to figure out who's blustering. I think a lot of TR's end up around 180-185bhp. Most are also using the same tried and trued formula. Trap speeds usually show who has what.
  9. Driving sure helps, but it's also what your competition has. For example, the vintage B-Sedan classes here (1.8L Datsun 510, 2L Alfa GTV), the front is turning 2:36-2:38's at Road America. Chris, your IMSA TR8 with its previous owner, did a 2:39. A 120hp TR would be lapped by those cars... It's also not going to beat a 150bhp Sprit or a 140hp Spridget, weighing 600lbs less. 175lb-ft isn't a lot for the engine size. I know of 2L engines of similar vintage, but from other country origin, making more than that, and with 2 valves. There really is no secret. It's an airflow problem. You s
  10. 175lb ft of torque at 5700rpm is possible with the TR4 engine to the rear wheels, but that's a real race engine (and not a hand grenade), but it's still nothing out of this world BMEP wise. I usually figure 100hp / L is a good starting figure for a proper vintage race engine of any type (Spit, BMC A-Series, TR 4-6's, MGB's, etc.). Over that requires A LOT of work, but it's possible. The best A-Series here, are 108hp/L, and still pretty tractable, with SU's and stock valve sizes (rules required in SCCA Production competition). A great Spit engine is going to make 150bhp, or thereabouts.
  11. The torque saying should be revised: Producing the most torque at the highest amount of RPM wins races
  12. I've seen a 5 port A-Series with modern development and fuel injection make 165bhp... 126 hp/L. Efficiencies decrease with engine size, but I have no doubt with a proper modern development regime, over 260bhp is possible.
  13. Good stuff, John. +1 to what happened at the end?
  14. At the start? The grids are set side-by-side. Green flag is out, passing is allowed. Pole only gets inside track position for turn 1, we were qualified on pole (up to 8s/lap at one point) and pulled in early. The Lotus set a time a little faster on the last lap of the session. It didnt matter as we knew (and told him - very friendly guy) that the TR was going to go sailing by at the start. The Lotus played the start better on Sunday, but a fast in a straight line Datsun (~225bhp from a 2L 510 engine) ran up the inside and foiled his plans.
  15. Hah. Rules are rules. Do you still have your TR4?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.