But they do.Originally Posted by Kitdy
Have a look at the dominant Corvette C5R and C6R. They had to go down a division because their dominance caused all others to leave GT1.
Rookie
But they do.
Have a look at the dominant Corvette C5R and C6R. They had to go down a division because their dominance caused all others to leave GT1.
Rookie
Some have tried different engine configuration, most have found the change expensive and have suffered many reliability problems (without actually getting any more hp).
When your getting in excess of 3000hp, its more traction issue than power issue.
Rookie
Have you heard about the proposal by Ferrari to move from their current V12 (very high tech engine) to a more environmentally friendly V8 turbo engine?
Technology doesn't necessarily mean better. One of the easiest to work on, lightest, most reliable, economical and powerful engine is actually the LSx.....yet many people regard this engine as low tech
Fanatic
Stop making sensical posts. TEH INTARWEBZ R ON OVARLOAD
[O o)O=\x/=O(o O]
The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.
Patrick says:
dads is too long so it wont fit
so i took hers out
and put mine in
Rookie
I seriously cant see this happening. They usually put restrictions on the winner, since the vette has dominated then they would have placed it with all sorts of restrictions.
Fanatic
You're of course assuming the turbo 8 will be less high tech than the current 6ltr V12. Which would be an incorrect assumption. Any improvement in economy would come from the change to a smaller capacity turbo, rather than a difference in the innate economy of one configuration over another.Have you heard about the proposal by Ferrari to move from their current V12 (very high tech engine) to a more environmentally friendly V8 turbo engine?
Technology doesn't necessarily mean better. One of the easiest to work on, lightest, most reliable, economical and powerful engine is actually the LSx.....yet many people regard this engine as low tech
If you can't see it happening then you're a fool. 1) The DBR9 has been quite successful as well and 2) the engine restrictors are used in place of having a rule specifying a certain engine type to be used in order to balance out the competition, so if the Aston V12 runs more restrictions then it must be making more horsepower, plain and simple.
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death...
– Hunter Thompson
Fanatic
What about the Audi R8s?
I'm dropping out to create a company that starts with motorcycles, then cars, and forty years later signs a legendary Brazilian driver who has a public and expensive feud with his French teammate.
Enthusiast
You need to start looking outside the box man. So even though the LSx's are lighter, smaller and make just as much power/torque they are some how more "lame"?
I guess all the people swaping LSx's in to Miatas, BMWs, RX7, 240SXs, skylines, EVOs, WRXs, Mustangs, S2000s, (almost all loosing weight, and gaining much power) and various kit cars are also lame then?
Why would cars not really limited by price, like the Mosler, and Ultima GTR use the LS1? Why would the Saleen S7 use a pushrod engine?
Do we have to do another BMW 5L V10 vs LS7 thread?
Because most cars today are not V-configured engines, which is what we are all talking about. OHC no doubt is better for inline engines, no argument. The top reason cars are OHC is marketing, and this is exactly why you call OHV engines "lame" without and real reason.
Enthusiast
As I’ve already given my technical pushrod arguments in an older thread I thought I would pontificate just a bit.
I’m sure I’m not the only forum member here who loves airplanes, specifically WWII warbirds. I’m fascinated by them. I love just to look at them. I think the P-51D Mustang is the most perfect example of engineering form meets function. That aircraft and its British designed engine (made either in the UK or US) just epitomizes grace and beauty in a mechanical thing.
Around WWII the world’s aircraft manufactures seemed to be split on what type of engine to use. Just about all aircraft were either powered by air cooled radials or liquid cooled in-line motors. Yes, we auto folk would never think of a V12 as an “in line” motor but compared to those radial motors they are in line.
To the best of my knowledge all sides seemed to have both. In the US we had Pratt and Wright producing radials while Allison made in lines. England had the wonderful Merlin and others from Rolls Royce. Germany and Japan used both types as well. I must admit I’m not as sure about some of the other air forces.
In line installations as a rule were more aerodynamic thanks to the small frontal area of the motors. If done carefully the radiators could actually produce small amounts of positive thrust. They often had 4 valve heads and were generally smaller in displacement than the radial motors. The Merlin and Allison motors were about 27 liters each. The engine in the Bf109 was something like 33l.
Their drawbacks were higher weight, and the risk that all that cooling plumbing might be shot up during a fight.
Radials were light for their displacement. They almost always (always?) had 2 valve heads and lots of liters. The radial used in the Thunderbolt and Bearcat was 55 liters! They also had expandability so that later “corn cobb” radials had 28 cylinders in 4 rows of seven.
Anyway, in aircraft design the rule was get the job done. It was clear that at the time the aircraft makers of the world had not come to any consensus as to which motor type was better. I’m not even sure that we would know today as the turbine engine seemed to prove it was better than both thus the argument was moot.
What we have was a case where each concept had pros and cons but not one design was clearly better overall.
But what would have happened if we applied some artificial market forces to the aircraft economy? Well if we taxed the heck out of coolant I could certainly see more manufactures choosing radial designs. Hey, no coolant, not tax.
If we taxed displacement, well the big 55 L motors aren’t looking that hot next to a bantamweight 27 liter motors. Bye bye big boys. What if the air races in the ‘30s had used displacement limits as a way to equalize the motors? I could see the large frontal area radial Gee Bees with V12s instead.
But the aircraft industry didn’t have those constraints. They had the freedom to choose so long as the final airframe provided the speed, range and economy the customer demanded.
The auto world is different. In most auto producing countries the governments had some type of system to discourage displacement be it taxes or registration fees. In the racing world we rarely had cases where engine configurations were as different as radial air cooled vs in line liquid cooled. Most of the time it was just easier to get some parity in power by limiting displacement.
Of course there have been times when the rule makers wanted to try to balance dissimilar motors via manipulating displacement. We have 2 vs 4 stroke bike and kart motors. We have turbo vs non-turbo. We even have the “what the hell is the displacement” Wankel motors. And of course we have 2V pushrod vs 4V OHC. In all cases it’s clear that even a carefully crafted displacement advantage doesn’t truly equalize the motors.
In the end we really have two different means to the same ends. Rolls and Allison weren’t wrong for producing V12s just because Pratt and Wright produced a lot of radials. Same is true in the auto world.
As a final note, I’m sure many of you were somewhat sadden when Mazda stopped making the Wankel a few years back. I suspect many would be saddened if Porsche and Subaru ended production of their horizontal motors. Rather than be critical because we think one design idea is antiquated, perhaps we should be happy that we have the option to choose.
(heh heh, not a singled technical justification in the whole post!)
Rookie
Im sorry but what an idi0tic comment.
Different class
Now compare which one has a higher top speed, a Bugatti Veyron versus an Mig-29.
Fanatic
Audi R8 = dominant, championship winning race car.Im sorry but what an idi0tic comment.
Different class
Now compare which one has a higher top speed, a Bugatti Veyron versus an Mig-29.
I'm dropping out to create a company that starts with motorcycles, then cars, and forty years later signs a legendary Brazilian driver who has a public and expensive feud with his French teammate.
Fanatic
Look, Aston Martin came in 5th Overall this year at Le Mans, the Corvettes, did not. The DBR9s also make more power than the Corvettes, these are facts. Move on.Im sorry but what an idi0tic comment.
Different class
.
Fanatic
We're not comparing # of cylinders or "high tech"ness....Ferrari would be using a DOHC V8, not a OHV.Have you heard about the proposal by Ferrari to move from their current V12 (very high tech engine) to a more environmentally friendly V8 turbo engine?
Technology doesn't necessarily mean better. One of the easiest to work on, lightest, most reliable, economical and powerful engine is actually the LSx.....yet many people regard this engine as low tech
Yet many people can't f---king read.
Enthusiast
It is worth noting that the C6-R was gaining when the race ended and it beat two other DB9-Rs. Also the Corvettes were first in class from 2004-2006.
What conclusion can be drawn from this? Well it looks like the promoters are doing a good job balancing out the two different engine types.
Fanatic
Well...then no it's not worth noting
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote