Most overpriced, hyped cars?

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
I've never really been a huge fan of the NSX or the S2000 anywhere that wasn't the track. On the street the S2000 just felt like it was dead. On the track however, both are brilliant.

Making power at high RPM in a street car would be a liability on the street where you can't wind it out long enough to get into the power band in the 1 block you have before the next red light.

At the track though you can pretty much stay in it the whole time and it's not an issue.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ex, pretty valid points overall, but I think you have to be more realistic on relative engine size and efficiency.

For Motorcycles with 600-1200cc motors, 10k+ Rpm is necessary to provide the performance/response you need. Ditto for performance 4-bangers of the 1.6 to 2.4 variety, they just don't push ~2750lb cars around very quickly at low revs, so 6500-8000 is good for them. For the 3.0L+ V6/I6 motors, typical in ~3250-3,750lb cars, they are starting to generate some decent torque numbers at lower rpm, so even 5500 redline is no big deal, but with variable valve timing and OHC designs, you see more 6k+ 6 cylinder cars out there. For V8s of the 4.6L+ variety, it's much the same story, with an even more pronounced appearance of usable torque at low rpm.

There is no 'superiority' inherent with large/small displacement, or high/low revlimit, etc, there are only better implementations of each setup to match a particular platform well.

The Mini cooper does good with its little motors, though it would be exciting to see a Supercharged 3800 in one, or perhaps an LS7. The Cummins Turbo Diesels are terrific motors, but something like a Mini (even if you bent the laws of space/time to make it fit) would do horribly with that motor. Same with the Hayabusa motor. Even with a Turbo, and putting out about the same HP as the base C6 motor (commonly done with boost), it would be a terrible setup to run in a Truck, as there's no torque to speak of.
Etc. Match component to proper usage, and all is well.

FYI the Hayabusa engine puts out a tremendous amount of low end torque. And would be fine in a Truck with a turbo.

According to this site the Hayabusa makes 99 ft-lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. Torque is at 109 at 3500 rpm and stays at over 100 ft-lbs from 3500 rpm to 10000 rpm.
In other words it has a tremendously wide and fat powerband. I believe a lot of the low end torque can be attributed to the large valve area and 4 valve heads.
Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can buy-period.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ex, pretty valid points overall, but I think you have to be more realistic on relative engine size and efficiency.

For Motorcycles with 600-1200cc motors, 10k+ Rpm is necessary to provide the performance/response you need. Ditto for performance 4-bangers of the 1.6 to 2.4 variety, they just don't push ~2750lb cars around very quickly at low revs, so 6500-8000 is good for them. For the 3.0L+ V6/I6 motors, typical in ~3250-3,750lb cars, they are starting to generate some decent torque numbers at lower rpm, so even 5500 redline is no big deal, but with variable valve timing and OHC designs, you see more 6k+ 6 cylinder cars out there. For V8s of the 4.6L+ variety, it's much the same story, with an even more pronounced appearance of usable torque at low rpm.

There is no 'superiority' inherent with large/small displacement, or high/low revlimit, etc, there are only better implementations of each setup to match a particular platform well.

The Mini cooper does good with its little motors, though it would be exciting to see a Supercharged 3800 in one, or perhaps an LS7. The Cummins Turbo Diesels are terrific motors, but something like a Mini (even if you bent the laws of space/time to make it fit) would do horribly with that motor. Same with the Hayabusa motor. Even with a Turbo, and putting out about the same HP as the base C6 motor (commonly done with boost), it would be a terrible setup to run in a Truck, as there's no torque to speak of.
Etc. Match component to proper usage, and all is well.

FYI the Hayabusa engine puts out a tremendous amount of low end torque. And would be fine in a Truck with a turbo.

According to this site the Hayabusa makes 99 ft-lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. Torque is at 109 at 3500 rpm and stays at over 100 ft-lbs from 3500 rpm to 10000 rpm.
In other words it has a tremendously wide and fat powerband. I believe a lot of the low end torque can be attributed to the large valve area and 4 valve heads.
Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can buy-period.

:laugh:

100 ft-lbs isn't a "tremendous" amount of low end torque and isn't going to be satisfying in anything more than a bike.

And actually 4 valve heads hinder low end torque due to low port velocities and poor cylinder filling at low RPM, but breath better up high. You trade port velocity and charge momentum down low for improved volumetric efficiency at higher RPM (ie: 4v engines will keep pulling and not "peak" and die like a 2v engine). With forced induction however, that disadvantage is negated as you are no longer relying on air stream momentum to "ram" air into the cylinders.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ex, pretty valid points overall, but I think you have to be more realistic on relative engine size and efficiency.

For Motorcycles with 600-1200cc motors, 10k+ Rpm is necessary to provide the performance/response you need. Ditto for performance 4-bangers of the 1.6 to 2.4 variety, they just don't push ~2750lb cars around very quickly at low revs, so 6500-8000 is good for them. For the 3.0L+ V6/I6 motors, typical in ~3250-3,750lb cars, they are starting to generate some decent torque numbers at lower rpm, so even 5500 redline is no big deal, but with variable valve timing and OHC designs, you see more 6k+ 6 cylinder cars out there. For V8s of the 4.6L+ variety, it's much the same story, with an even more pronounced appearance of usable torque at low rpm.

There is no 'superiority' inherent with large/small displacement, or high/low revlimit, etc, there are only better implementations of each setup to match a particular platform well.

The Mini cooper does good with its little motors, though it would be exciting to see a Supercharged 3800 in one, or perhaps an LS7. The Cummins Turbo Diesels are terrific motors, but something like a Mini (even if you bent the laws of space/time to make it fit) would do horribly with that motor. Same with the Hayabusa motor. Even with a Turbo, and putting out about the same HP as the base C6 motor (commonly done with boost), it would be a terrible setup to run in a Truck, as there's no torque to speak of.
Etc. Match component to proper usage, and all is well.

FYI the Hayabusa engine puts out a tremendous amount of low end torque. And would be fine in a Truck with a turbo.

According to this site the Hayabusa makes 99 ft-lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. Torque is at 109 at 3500 rpm and stays at over 100 ft-lbs from 3500 rpm to 10000 rpm.
In other words it has a tremendously wide and fat powerband. I believe a lot of the low end torque can be attributed to the large valve area and 4 valve heads.
Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can buy-period.

:laugh:

100 ft-lbs isn't a "tremendous" amount of low end torque and isn't going to be satisfying in anything more than a bike.

And actually 4 valve heads hinder low end torque due to low port velocities and poor cylinder filling at low RPM, but breath better up high. You trade port velocity and charge momentum down low for improved volumetric efficiency at higher RPM (ie: 4v engines will keep pulling and not "peak" and die like a 2v engine). With forced induction however, that disadvantage is negated as you are no longer relying on air stream momentum to "ram" air into the cylinders.

100 ft-lbs is a tremendous amount of torque for a 1340cc engine( peak is 128 ft-lbs).
And the high torque is over a very broad range, try and find any engine that has a wider high torque area. From 3000 rpm to 10,500 rpm torque is between 98.5 and 128 ft-lbs.

Four-valve heads do not hinder low end torque in a modern engine design.
Text
This huge valve area can be used with no loss of low end torque. This is because the ports can be made with the same cross sectional area as a 2 valve head. (the CC?s of the runners that is commonly used). This means that the port will have the same velocity as a 2 valve head, hence the same low end torque....

I repeat, Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can
buy-period.

And Hayabusas with forced induction(turbos) can easily make 400-500 rear wheel horsepower, one has hit 700 hp. Is that enough power for you?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Ex, pretty valid points overall, but I think you have to be more realistic on relative engine size and efficiency.

For Motorcycles with 600-1200cc motors, 10k+ Rpm is necessary to provide the performance/response you need. Ditto for performance 4-bangers of the 1.6 to 2.4 variety, they just don't push ~2750lb cars around very quickly at low revs, so 6500-8000 is good for them. For the 3.0L+ V6/I6 motors, typical in ~3250-3,750lb cars, they are starting to generate some decent torque numbers at lower rpm, so even 5500 redline is no big deal, but with variable valve timing and OHC designs, you see more 6k+ 6 cylinder cars out there. For V8s of the 4.6L+ variety, it's much the same story, with an even more pronounced appearance of usable torque at low rpm.

There is no 'superiority' inherent with large/small displacement, or high/low revlimit, etc, there are only better implementations of each setup to match a particular platform well.

The Mini cooper does good with its little motors, though it would be exciting to see a Supercharged 3800 in one, or perhaps an LS7. The Cummins Turbo Diesels are terrific motors, but something like a Mini (even if you bent the laws of space/time to make it fit) would do horribly with that motor. Same with the Hayabusa motor. Even with a Turbo, and putting out about the same HP as the base C6 motor (commonly done with boost), it would be a terrible setup to run in a Truck, as there's no torque to speak of.
Etc. Match component to proper usage, and all is well.

FYI the Hayabusa engine puts out a tremendous amount of low end torque. And would be fine in a Truck with a turbo.

According to this site the Hayabusa makes 99 ft-lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. Torque is at 109 at 3500 rpm and stays at over 100 ft-lbs from 3500 rpm to 10000 rpm.
In other words it has a tremendously wide and fat powerband. I believe a lot of the low end torque can be attributed to the large valve area and 4 valve heads.
Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can buy-period.

:laugh:

100 ft-lbs isn't a "tremendous" amount of low end torque and isn't going to be satisfying in anything more than a bike.

And actually 4 valve heads hinder low end torque due to low port velocities and poor cylinder filling at low RPM, but breath better up high. You trade port velocity and charge momentum down low for improved volumetric efficiency at higher RPM (ie: 4v engines will keep pulling and not "peak" and die like a 2v engine). With forced induction however, that disadvantage is negated as you are no longer relying on air stream momentum to "ram" air into the cylinders.

100 ft-lbs is a tremendous amount of torque for a 1340cc engine( peak is 128 ft-lbs).
And the high torque is over a very broad range, try and find any engine that has a wider high torque area. From 3000 rpm to 10,500 rpm torque is between 98.5 and 128 ft-lbs.

Four-valve heads do not hinder low end torque in a modern engine design.
Text
This huge valve area can be used with no loss of low end torque. This is because the ports can be made with the same cross sectional area as a 2 valve head. (the CC?s of the runners that is commonly used). This means that the port will have the same velocity as a 2 valve head, hence the same low end torque....

I repeat, Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can
buy-period.

And Hayabusas with forced induction(turbos) can easily make 400-500 rear wheel horsepower, one has hit 700 hp. Is that enough power for you?

You're totally missing the point. The Busa engine is great for what it is, a bike engine. A Busa engine in a 5,000lb truck would be EPIC FAIL.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

And never will you have an F1 engine that can last 20 years.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn?t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Okay, cut a top fueler's engine in 1/4 and you'll have an engine roughly the same weight using "old tech" that makes more than twice the HP. That better?

Are you comparing a supercharged top-fuel dragster engine designed to run for 4 seconds to an F1 engine now?

I'm out. Forget it.

 

[zerocool84]

This thread has turned into

 

[GoatMonkey]

You can discount any mechanical design in an engine as being low tech, after all it's just a machine, variations on internal combustion that give small incremental improvements. Even a Prius isn't high tech when you think of it as being an electric car, electric cars have been around for a long time. You could make a case for cars being more high tech based on their computer systems though. Just about everything in cars today is controlled by a computer.

The computer control of the mechanical pieces is a relatively new thing. I can't believe we're on Anandtech and nobody pointed that out.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

And never will you have an F1 engine that can last 20 years.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn?t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Okay, cut a top fueler's engine in 1/4 and you'll have an engine roughly the same weight using "old tech" that makes more than twice the HP. That better?

Are you comparing a supercharged top-fuel dragster engine designed to run for 4 seconds to an F1 engine now?

I'm out. Forget it.

Oh... so when I talk about longevity, it's not relevant. But when YOU talk about longevity, it is!

Good call there.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Except that situation never happens. Never will you have a 20 year old brick producing anywhere near F1 power and weighing anywhere near as little as the F1 engine.

I don't really see why you're ragging on F1 saying it's not high tech. It is. Deal with it. Don't make me quote Scott Adams.

And never will you have an F1 engine that can last 20 years.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn?t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Okay, cut a top fueler's engine in 1/4 and you'll have an engine roughly the same weight using "old tech" that makes more than twice the HP. That better?

Are you comparing a supercharged top-fuel dragster engine designed to run for 4 seconds to an F1 engine now?

I'm out. Forget it.

Oh... so when I talk about longevity, it's not relevant. But when YOU talk about longevity, it is!

Good call there.

:facepalm: *2. I didn't. The age refers to the design and was originally brought up by another poster, not myself. Seriously, this is not a discussion, you're just flaming me. Pack it in.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
:facepalm: *2. I didn't. The age refers to the design and was originally brought up by another poster, not myself. Seriously, this is not a discussion, you're just flaming me. Pack it in.

My point was that it wasn't the tech that allows an F1 engine to make the power, it's the compromises that can be made when you can purpose build something to do a single thing. When you don't have to make it last a long time, there are a lot of things you can do to make it much more powerful. Both F1 and Top Fuel do these things. Neither races I would call long.

To compare them to computers, top fuel is LN overclocking, F1 is dry ice. Both of which I would call equally feasible for use in a normal PC: not at all. One is just slightly more temperamental than the other.

Every racing series that has attracted big money has ended up having engines that are tweaked near the limit of the rule book and the application. It's the nature of the competition. Why build a 600HP engine that can last 1000 miles if a race is only 100 miles? Sacrifice some durability and go for 650HP. Why make it idle at 700RPM? You never run at less than 5000 on the track, so put a wild cam in to make another 20HP and let it idle at 4000RPM. This isn't tech that allows you to do this, it's the compromises that you make in building a race engine.

Here's something to consider: Your average 2006 NASCAR engine makes 70 more HP than your average 2006 F1 engine. It is limited to "old tech", flat tappet cam, 600CFM carburetor, and some other quite restrictive limitations. To get this power they do much of the same research as F1. The primary difference is that the application is different, and given their longer races, longevity is more of a concern that must be addressed.

Again, DOHC has been around since the automotive industry was in it's infancy.

So I ask you, what is high tech about F1 engines? They are beautiful examples of metallurgy, engineering, and refinement. But it's still old tech. And the engine is still only good for one purpose.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
:facepalm: *2. I didn't. The age refers to the design and was originally brought up by another poster, not myself. Seriously, this is not a discussion, you're just flaming me. Pack it in.

My point was that it wasn't the tech that allows an F1 engine to make the power, it's the compromises that can be made when you can purpose build something to do a single thing. When you don't have to make it last a long time, there are a lot of things you can do to make it much more powerful. Both F1 and Top Fuel do these things. Neither races I would call long.

To compare them to computers, top fuel is LN overclocking, F1 is dry ice. Both of which I would call equally feasible for use in a normal PC: not at all. One is just slightly more temperamental than the other.

Every racing series that has attracted big money has ended up having engines that are tweaked near the limit of the rule book and the application. It's the nature of the competition. Why build a 600HP engine that can last 1000 miles if a race is only 100 miles? Sacrifice some durability and go for 650HP. Why make it idle at 700RPM? You never run at less than 5000 on the track, so put a wild cam in to make another 20HP and let it idle at 4000RPM. This isn't tech that allows you to do this, it's the compromises that you make in building a race engine.

Here's something to consider: Your average 2006 NASCAR engine makes 70 more HP than your average 2006 F1 engine. It is limited to "old tech", flat tappet cam, 600CFM carburetor, and some other quite restrictive limitations. To get this power they do much of the same research as F1. The primary difference is that the application is different, and given their longer races, longevity is more of a concern that must be addressed.

Again, DOHC has been around since the automotive industry was in it's infancy.

So I ask you, what is high tech about F1 engines? They are beautiful examples of metallurgy, engineering, and refinement. But it's still old tech. And the engine is still only good for one purpose.

I don't know what you want me to say. Fossil fueled engines are old tech, period. I was only ever stating that F1 IS high tech with regard to engine design.

You and Ex are hanging on DOHC like that's the be-all and end-all of engine tech for some unknown reason. Did anyone mention that apart from you two? AFAIK most F1 engines valves are opened using actuators of varying types, not cams. I really don't see why we are even talking about DOHC.

NASCAR. Wow. How did we get here? Did anyone take notes? If it's so fantastic then why don't they just pop the 'more powerful' NASCAR engines into an F1 chassis and call it a day? You know what, why don't we just use ONE racing engine of one type for all racing classes in the entire world. Wouldn't that be a hoot. I'm sure we'd learn a whole lot doing that.


PS: Top fuel race is what, 4 seconds max? An F1 race is 2 hours and ~250 miles or 1000 times longer. Please, it's a weak comparison. I'm not saying there isn't high tech in TF, there is, but come on.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

You're thinking of them using pneumatic springs instead of valve springs due to the valve spring's inertia being the limiting factor in RPM and causing valve float. They've been doing that for 10 years.

Pre-cooling air before it enters the cylinders, injection of any substance other than air and fuel into the cylinders, variable-geometry intake and exhaust systems, variable valve timing are forbidden. Each cylinder can have only one fuel injector and a single plug spark ignition.

The crankcase and cylinder block must be made of cast or wrought aluminium alloys. The crankshaft and camshafts must be made from an iron alloy, pistons from an aluminium alloy and valves from alloys based on iron, nickel, cobalt or titanium.

So what makes an F1 engine more high tech than the M3's V8? You're the one stating it's high tech. So inform me.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
You're thinking of them using pneumatic springs instead of valve springs due to the valve spring's inertia being the limiting factor in RPM and causing valve float. They've been doing that for 10 years.

Pre-cooling air before it enters the cylinders, injection of any substance other than air and fuel into the cylinders, variable-geometry intake and exhaust systems, variable valve timing are forbidden. Each cylinder can have only one fuel injector and a single plug spark ignition.

The crankcase and cylinder block must be made of cast or wrought aluminium alloys. The crankshaft and camshafts must be made from an iron alloy, pistons from an aluminium alloy and valves from alloys based on iron, nickel, cobalt or titanium.

So what makes an F1 engine more high tech than the M3's V8? You're the one stating it's high tech. So inform me.

:roll: I'll let Scott Adams take care of this one.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
:roll: I'll let Scott Adams take care of this one.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

I have stated many facts for my point. You have done nothing but quote the guy who writes Dilbert. Again, I ask the same question, "What makes an F1 engine high tech?"

Edit:
Okay, so you did offer this piece:

AFAIK most F1 engines valves are opened using actuators of varying types, not cams. I really don't see why we are even talking about DOHC.

...which is incorrect. They do use cams.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
I've never really been a huge fan of the NSX or the S2000 anywhere that wasn't the track. On the street the S2000 just felt like it was dead. On the track however, both are brilliant.

Making power at high RPM in a street car would be a liability on the street where you can't wind it out long enough to get into the power band in the 1 block you have before the next red light.

At the track though you can pretty much stay in it the whole time and it's not an issue.

exactly....it is almost like having a massive turbo that lags like crazy, only when it comes on it doesn't come on nearly as hard as it should...

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
:roll: I'll let Scott Adams take care of this one.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

I have stated many facts for my point. You have done nothing but quote the guy who writes Dilbert. Again, I ask the same question, "What makes an F1 engine high tech?"

Edit:
Okay, so you did offer this piece:

AFAIK most F1 engines valves are opened using actuators of varying types, not cams. I really don't see why we are even talking about DOHC.

...which is incorrect. They do use cams.

The guy who writes Dilbert is pretty much on the money if you take the time to read this thread...

You haven't stated any relevant fact, you've just lurched from one end of the spectrum to another, hence I have got bored of jousting with you.

Are you new to the internet or does AFAIK mean something different where you live? I was asking you why we were even talking about DOHC, but you started derailing the thread with talk of dragsters, 20 year old F1 engines, M3's, sky hooks and weasle juice.

Here's the news; I got the camless thing wrong. I didn't search a thousand websites before hand so I could pretend to be some car hero and ensure you could not find the smallest beloved patriot in my armour. You must feel pretty good now, having beaten me at Internet. :roll:

How about you tell me why an F1 engine is not high tech? That way I can sit here with a cup of Tea and just chuckle gentley to myself while I read.

 

[phreaqe]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
:roll: I'll let Scott Adams take care of this one.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

I have stated many facts for my point. You have done nothing but quote the guy who writes Dilbert. Again, I ask the same question, "What makes an F1 engine high tech?"

Edit:
Okay, so you did offer this piece:

AFAIK most F1 engines valves are opened using actuators of varying types, not cams. I really don't see why we are even talking about DOHC.

...which is incorrect. They do use cams.

The guy who writes Dilbert is pretty much on the money if you take the time to read this thread...

You haven't stated any relevant fact, you've just lurched from one end of the spectrum to another, hence I have got bored of jousting with you.

Are you new to the internet or does AFAIK mean something different where you live? I was asking you why we were even talking about DOHC, but you started derailing the thread with talk of dragsters, 20 year old F1 engines, M3's, sky hooks and weasle juice.

Here's the news; I got the camless thing wrong. I didn't search a thousand websites before hand so I could pretend to be some car hero and ensure you could not find the smallest beloved patriot in my armour. You must feel pretty good now, having beaten me at Internet. :roll:

How about you tell me why an F1 engine is not high tech? That way I can sit here with a cup of Tea and just chuckle gentley to myself while I read.

i think he has told you why they are not high tech a few times. i am not saying i nescesarily agree with him because i view the engineering that went into the engines as high tech, therefore making the engines hightech, but he at least has put forth an argument, while you quote scott adams.

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I'm going on what I have read and the videos I have seen.

Then you know nothing about cars. Ayrton Senna, one of the best F1 drivers test drove the NSX many times and loved it. Here's Senna test driving the Type-R.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: phreaqe

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
:roll: I'll let Scott Adams take care of this one.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

I have stated many facts for my point. You have done nothing but quote the guy who writes Dilbert. Again, I ask the same question, "What makes an F1 engine high tech?"

Edit:
Okay, so you did offer this piece:

AFAIK most F1 engines valves are opened using actuators of varying types, not cams. I really don't see why we are even talking about DOHC.

...which is incorrect. They do use cams.

The guy who writes Dilbert is pretty much on the money if you take the time to read this thread...

You haven't stated any relevant fact, you've just lurched from one end of the spectrum to another, hence I have got bored of jousting with you.

Are you new to the internet or does AFAIK mean something different where you live? I was asking you why we were even talking about DOHC, but you started derailing the thread with talk of dragsters, 20 year old F1 engines, M3's, sky hooks and weasle juice.

Here's the news; I got the camless thing wrong. I didn't search a thousand websites before hand so I could pretend to be some car hero and ensure you could not find the smallest beloved patriot in my armour. You must feel pretty good now, having beaten me at Internet. :roll:

How about you tell me why an F1 engine is not high tech? That way I can sit here with a cup of Tea and just chuckle gentley to myself while I read.

i think he has told you why they are not high tech a few times. i am not saying i nescesarily agree with him because i view the engineering that went into the engines as high tech, therefore making the engines hightech, but he at least has put forth an argument, while you quote scott adams.

Simply stating that the Internal combustion engine is old is just stating the bleeding obvious. It's not an argument.

I also posted more than just Scott Adams and now my Tea is getting cold.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: phreaqe
i think he has told you why they are not high tech a few times. i am not saying i nescesarily agree with him because i view the engineering that went into the engines as high tech, therefore making the engines hightech, but he at least has put forth an argument, while you quote scott adams.

Simply stating that the Internal combustion engine is old is just stating the bleeding obvious. It's not an argument.

I also posted more than just Scott Adams and now my Tea is getting cold.

#1 and #3 so far....

Just go ahead and claim that I'm a nazi and that you build F1 engines and make it a hat trick.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Godwins Law is only used in dire emergencies.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: marincounty

100 ft-lbs is a tremendous amount of torque for a 1340cc engine( peak is 128 ft-lbs).
And the high torque is over a very broad range, try and find any engine that has a wider high torque area. From 3000 rpm to 10,500 rpm torque is between 98.5 and 128 ft-lbs.

Four-valve heads do not hinder low end torque in a modern engine design.
Text
This huge valve area can be used with no loss of low end torque. This is because the ports can be made with the same cross sectional area as a 2 valve head. (the CC?s of the runners that is commonly used). This means that the port will have the same velocity as a 2 valve head, hence the same low end torque....

I repeat, Japanese motorcycle engine technology is superior to anything else you can
buy-period.

And Hayabusas with forced induction(turbos) can easily make 400-500 rear wheel horsepower, one has hit 700 hp. Is that enough power for you?

You're missing the point...

I don't care if it's 100 ft-lbs out of a 0.001L engine, its still only 100 ft-lbs...

And it doesn't matter that it's 100000 ft-lbs per L, it's still only .001L ... and still only 100 ft-lbs...

Many engines can make 700 HP with forced induction, nothing new there. Can it do it on 91 octane though, 24/7? Or is it only good for showing off until your nitrous or meth bottle or tank of 117 octane C16 race gas runs out and you have to go home with 300 HP. Hmm?


Your link mentions the advantages of 4v heads which is large cross sectional valve area (among other things) to permit more air flow.

The improved area results in lower velocity at low RPM and torque suffers as a result. Most 4v engines use runner butterflies to go to one set of runners at low RPM for this purpose, but in the end it still splits between the valves and slows down, and isn't as good with low end torque as a traditional 2v engine.

In theory there are ways to address it, but in practice, 4v engines in the real world have weaker lower RPM performance than an equivilent 2v engine.

 

[GoatMonkey]

You guys just have different definition of what constitutes a high-tech engine.

It's easy to say that all internal combustion engines are low tech because we've been making them for over 100 years now. We're just making little variations on the same 100 year old formula.

On the other hand, modern computer aided design, robotic manufacturing, modern materials, and computer control of the engine put a high-tech spin on this low tech formula.

A F1 car is overall a high tech machine in my opinion, but at its core, you're still just making gas explode. At some level it is using 100+ year old technology.

A lot of the technology involved goes into the design and engineering. Within a limited set of rules the engineers must create workarounds for their limited displacement, lack of true forced induction, and a limited number of cylinders. It's really an impressive feat of engineering to get 800hp from a tiny engine like that. I think that does make it high tech.

Not that you couldn't pull the same tricks with a bigger engine but there really isn't a reason to in other racing series. I don't think I could find a fault in the design of a F1 engine, it's really the best thought out answer to the limitations placed on it by the rules. By running it at low RPMs with 2 valves for better torque, while limited to a 2.4L V-8, you wouldn't win any races.

Now, consider the car as a whole and not just the engine. I would be shocked if an F1 car as they are today could be built 30 years ago or even 20 years ago. Especially considering the computers involved in making the car run would've required a mainframe at the time.

Of course when you're not constrained by rules, simple brute force of an engine like a Bugatti Veyron, while still arguably high tech in its design and manufacturing, is very impressive and much more reliable. Even an engine like the ZR-1's LS9 is very impressive cranking out just 250hp less than the F1 engine, but probably more torque, and definitely more reliability, but it's a good bit larger and heavier. And to tell you the truth, I consider the LS9 to be a fairly high-tech engine as well. It's just not the same engine that the SB Chevy was 50 years ago, there have been significant design changes there and I guarantee a lot of engineers sitting behind computers to bring it up to its current state. The LS9 is using pushrods still due to design considerations. They wanted as low of a hood clearance as possible and as high of a displacement as possible to fit in the engine bay of a Corvette and that's it. The LS9 is no dinosaur, it's exactly what the engineers wanted to make, and it does its job well.

 

[manowar821]

Jaguar, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Renault, Hummer. All boring hunks of junk, designed to look like you have status and/or class, when all they do is show everyone else how little imagination you have.