Ankf00
06-15-03, 03:45 AM
After taking care of some demon's in another thread in another place ;) I want to discuss the '05 Champ Car specs. What is a pro of a V-10 formula if there isn't any F1 subsidization? The engines cost way too much for any team to be able to afford, even on a customer basis for year old designs. The materials costs are out of hand and this fact alone negates the possiblility of Champ Car utilized F1 tech. V-10's aren't even naturally balanced, what is exotic about them when compared to other formalae? F1, that's all, and without F1 V-10's are nothing. V-10's were standardized to lower some costs but still maintain the preferred high cylinder count of F1. Eliminating the super alloys and pnuematic valve trains of the present F1 engine effectively makes it a new engine, in which case, why aren't we designing our own engine in the first place? They can't just change the metals used and go "hey, here's a 4140 steel engine block to replace the old Al super alloy based engine block, oh yea, we removed those cost prohibitive chemical wet liners for the cylinders as well." F1 teams aren't going to make CART sattelite teams, nor are they going to take losses for CART teams when they might be forced to take losses in supplying a 2nd team on the GP grid. It's completely idiotic to think that a customer deal for the GP grid is transferrable as an offer for the CART grid, it's a completely different set of circumstances. These manufs like BMW and Damiler will be forced to supply a 2nd team and unless they're forced to in order to prop up a GP grid, they wont make available a supply. Another aspect is the production reality. Ford and Dodge make production V-10's for your average vehicle, the SLR and Carrera GT have yet to hit the streets so they don't count, and then again they're both limited production as well.
If we're going to have to work with 'new' engines and a 'new' formula it might as well be something that's best for prospective manufacturers as well as something that is different from any motorsports competition. MotoGP does not use liter 4 cycles, there is no talk of joint ventures between SBK and MotoGP for a reason. They both do their own thing, and we'd do best to learn from that, instead of going from trying to copy IRL to trying to copy F1. 4 cylinder 2 liter turbos has been a formula discussed by a few such as Tom Anderson. Hell, whatever formula it is, go with it as long as it's doable and there's support and it's CART'S.
As far as 4's go, group B rally used to make upwards of 800 HP, the clear majority of the world's engine makers manufacture turbocharged systems. The argument that a 2 liter 4 cylinder can't make the power needed is stupid imo. A GSX-R1000 can make upwards of 19000 RPM I believe, if not than 18000 minimum, a GSX-R600 makes 17.5K RPM. Assuming a doubling of the GSX-R1000 to 2.0L, you'll have 280-300HP, that's as much as a WRC class car, and zero turbo, a 2.0L turbo in WRC/GroupA class is electronically limited to 300HP and these cars produce almost 600 lb-ft of torque propelling these cars from 0-60 on GRAVEL from 3 to 4 seconds. The argument that a 2 liter 4 cylinder is somehow inherently weak and ill-founded is baseless to me. You beef up your rods and make the piston sturdier, the sand mold for the engine block gets formed in a thicker larger fashion, go create better/cheaper more efficient dry or wet liners... ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS ARE POSSIBLE FOR THE PROBLEMS AT HAND, a factor not considered in this v10 vs. 4 cylinder argument. Use industry produced Ti or high strength Al alloys currently in use in production models of the evoVII or STi or any other vehicle to form the valve train to keep the engines on more of a "production" level whilst providing enough strength and toughness to realize and sustain 700+ HP at the high boost loads required ... There's modern ultra high strength carbon steels that can be used for certain parts as well that are currently utilized in industry. Not that I know what rpm limit you would max out at, or what the max HP level would be that could easily be achieved, but if Group B rally has had 800+ HP in the past, I don't see what's stopping us from achieving that with modern metals, chemical wet liners, and high turbo boost levels, and I dont see where this is somehow a worse proposition to manufacturers than a V-10. Show me a bloody v-10 in production in a street car and I'll show you 3 2 liter 4's. So how does the V-10 business still carry momentum?
Also, the problem of a feeder series can be rectified in the fact that an evoVII or sti can produce 300HP in purely stock engine, the possibility of providing a stock block to certified engine builders can be pursued to produce race engines to a certain spec'ed chassis produced by various design firms. This would drive down costs and a corportion could use this stock block utilization to their advantage quite easily.
-the above work represents the compounded theories of Tifosi24B and Ankf00 in informal brainstorming sessions. :D
If we're going to have to work with 'new' engines and a 'new' formula it might as well be something that's best for prospective manufacturers as well as something that is different from any motorsports competition. MotoGP does not use liter 4 cycles, there is no talk of joint ventures between SBK and MotoGP for a reason. They both do their own thing, and we'd do best to learn from that, instead of going from trying to copy IRL to trying to copy F1. 4 cylinder 2 liter turbos has been a formula discussed by a few such as Tom Anderson. Hell, whatever formula it is, go with it as long as it's doable and there's support and it's CART'S.
As far as 4's go, group B rally used to make upwards of 800 HP, the clear majority of the world's engine makers manufacture turbocharged systems. The argument that a 2 liter 4 cylinder can't make the power needed is stupid imo. A GSX-R1000 can make upwards of 19000 RPM I believe, if not than 18000 minimum, a GSX-R600 makes 17.5K RPM. Assuming a doubling of the GSX-R1000 to 2.0L, you'll have 280-300HP, that's as much as a WRC class car, and zero turbo, a 2.0L turbo in WRC/GroupA class is electronically limited to 300HP and these cars produce almost 600 lb-ft of torque propelling these cars from 0-60 on GRAVEL from 3 to 4 seconds. The argument that a 2 liter 4 cylinder is somehow inherently weak and ill-founded is baseless to me. You beef up your rods and make the piston sturdier, the sand mold for the engine block gets formed in a thicker larger fashion, go create better/cheaper more efficient dry or wet liners... ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS ARE POSSIBLE FOR THE PROBLEMS AT HAND, a factor not considered in this v10 vs. 4 cylinder argument. Use industry produced Ti or high strength Al alloys currently in use in production models of the evoVII or STi or any other vehicle to form the valve train to keep the engines on more of a "production" level whilst providing enough strength and toughness to realize and sustain 700+ HP at the high boost loads required ... There's modern ultra high strength carbon steels that can be used for certain parts as well that are currently utilized in industry. Not that I know what rpm limit you would max out at, or what the max HP level would be that could easily be achieved, but if Group B rally has had 800+ HP in the past, I don't see what's stopping us from achieving that with modern metals, chemical wet liners, and high turbo boost levels, and I dont see where this is somehow a worse proposition to manufacturers than a V-10. Show me a bloody v-10 in production in a street car and I'll show you 3 2 liter 4's. So how does the V-10 business still carry momentum?
Also, the problem of a feeder series can be rectified in the fact that an evoVII or sti can produce 300HP in purely stock engine, the possibility of providing a stock block to certified engine builders can be pursued to produce race engines to a certain spec'ed chassis produced by various design firms. This would drive down costs and a corportion could use this stock block utilization to their advantage quite easily.
-the above work represents the compounded theories of Tifosi24B and Ankf00 in informal brainstorming sessions. :D