Everett Ogilvie

There is a fun thread going in the C6Z section regarding how "good" a given engine sounds. I posted a reference to a really interesting comparison of a F1 engine compared to a NASCAR Cup engine, and it is such an interesting paper that it deserves posting here. Enjoy - it truly is a great writeup for the engineers and gearheads around here!


http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine..._cup_to_f1.htm

mgarfias

Interesting stuff in there. Funny how little peak torque the cup motors make. I wonder how the road course cup motors differ. And is anyone optimizing for HP area under the curve?

Slalom4me

Thank you for the link.

I only see Race Engine Technology occasionally.

.

drivinhard

1.45 ft/lb per cube, that's about as good as it gets for an N/A motor. (F1 about the same) And amazing because of the tight box they (NASCAR) are in.

NemesisC5

Good reading material, thanks.

0RAAMaudio

That was quite interesting to say the least, thanks

Rick

mgarfias

I know, I just thought it'd be higher. Guess I forgot the compression ratio limit of a few years ago. Too bad they can't run 14:1 any more.

BrianCunningham

drivinhard

I could have swore I saw the dynojet numbers from after Michigan from maybe 2 yrs ago when Kurt Busch's car did 817 RWHP. There were a lot of faces. A quick google couldn't find that again but I'm fairly certain that's an accurate number. *edit* found it, 839 RWHP

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2...l-auto-racing/

Here were the numbers from after Atlanta in '05, look how much in just a few years they have picked up:

Jamie McMurray, who finished 11th, had the strongest engine (Elliott's), with 769 peak horsepower, winner Carl Edwards showed 754 horsepower. Runner-up Jimmie Johnson showed 759 horsepower. Others tested: Elliott Sadler, 764 horsepower; Ryan Newman, 763; Kasey Kahne, 758; Mark Martin, 756; Michael Waltrip, 752; Dave Blaney, 745 and Ken Schrader, 733.

I am fairly certain the steel wheel/slick weight on them is in the ~70 lb range (at least maybe for the high speed tracks where they run inner liners). It's amazing they lose so little power through the drivetrain. I know the clutch's are very small (MOI), etc

I did a video piece at Gibbs Racing back in '04 on a project we were doing at work, got to spend a lot of time in the shop and engine shop area, very very

mgarfias

"Doug Duchardt, Hendrick's race track boss, said he hadn't seen all the Michigan numbers yet so he didn't want to talk about engine comparisons. But he didn't seem convinced that Johnson's engine came in at the bottom of the list in NASCAR testing. "It's not the peak horsepower number that really matter, it's the power range," Duchardt said."

Sure sounds like they're looking at area under the curve.

dcvee

Only since the creation of locomotion

Don

Bink

Thanks for the link!
I had the site bookmarked and lost it several years ago - I was bummed . Lots of good, solid tech articles...for us analog non-techies.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine...y_contents.htm

Bink

Hmmmm.....this article makes some interesting points against those who assume nascar is a bastard child.

I'm for all forms of racing. Lawnmower to F1. Bikes, boats, trucks - including semis, airplanes...

If it moves...race it!

BrianCunningham

Racecar Engineering and Race Tech are great magazines on the subject.

Some neat stuff about data acquisition in there too.

USAsOnlyWay

Very interesting read, thanks!

ghoffman

I think the bottom ends are very comparable. The head design is really optimum for each set of rules. In reality, if you are not going to exceed the 10-11K rpm that the bigger engine's bottom end is limited to, the pushrod valvetrain does not hurt you these days. Also, carburetors, while stone age primitive, don't make any less peak HP than an EFI system, just better part throttle effciency and emmisions.