Think NASCAR is outdated tech?

[DocWalt]

Comparing NASCAR Cup engines to Formula One engines, by EPI Inc. (http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/comparison_of_cup_to_f1.htm)

Damn.

[DocWalt]

heh, and if you think the valve lift is limited by the flat tappet diameter, you'd be wrong ;)


Less obvious, but very significant are limitations such as the 0.875 flat tappet diameter. That restriction severely limits the lifter velocity (inches / degree) that can be attained. However, since the real goal is to achieve velocity at the valve, the Cup engine people have neatly sidestepped that limitation with large base-circle cam lobes, immense rocker ratios, and very stiff pushrods and rocker arms.

He didn't say it was the lift that was limited, just the velocity. He also went on to state how the Cup teams get around the limitation as best as they can.

I always find it amazing that they impart these regulations that just makes the teams do it another way. F1 has been doing it to the point where they're driving costs up by adding silly regulations even though they claim to be cutting cost.

[STiedVR4Guy]

Think about what Nascar engines go through in a race. 500 laps at 150+ mph making 800 + hp. They are pretty solid.

Although the racing itself I find incredibly boring.

[UTRacerX9]

Bah. 5.16 bhp/ci for an F1 engine vs 2.31 is all I need to see. Nascar sucks.

[HilbillyHomeboy]

That's what makes Nascar great, IMO. It's basically a sb 350. No one is building a 2.5l v-8 revving to 18,000 rpms. Nascar is much more relatable, in general. I quit arguing with people about Nascar a long time ago, and I hardly ever watch a race anymore.

Jeremy

[UTRacerX9]

It's basically a sb 350.

Jeremy

...Which is exactly why it is outdated tech.

[HilbillyHomeboy]

...There's no need to fix what isn't broken. Nascar stays true to it's roots/fans, for the most part. It's what the fans want to see.

I do wish the cars were more based on their street counterparts though, like they used to be. :(

Jeremy

[i3igpete]

now THAT would be awesome... 4-banger camry vs 4 banger taurus.

[HilbillyHomeboy]

LOL, touche! :p

Jeremy

[Permanent grin]

Did you know that F1 cars run on a fuel very similar to our super plus unleaded and in fact they ran an F1 car on Shell V Power which is the pump gas I run on just to prove it! V Power is 99 RON which is about 91 MON.


Can a Formula One car run on road car fuel? What happens if you fill up an F1 car with Shell V-Power from the forecourt? Fernando Alonso demonstrates how his Formula One car's lap times, running on Shell V-Power road fuel, compare with lap times using Shell V-Power race fuel, at Ferrari's Fiorano test track BBC Coverage: Shell V-Power race fuel vs. Shell V-Power road fuel - YouTube (http://bit.ly/pHa2dw). The run was also filmed by the BBC


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbQZQUoy1L4&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbQZQUoy1L4&feature=player_embedded

André

[BaadVR4]

Can you say "carburetor"? Can you say "flat tappet camshaft"? Can you say "MINIMUM ROD WEIGHT OF 525 grams"? Nascar technology doesn't suck, it's quite remarkable considering the artificial regulations placed on them. How about comparing F1 to the average Top Fuel drag race engine? They make about 16 bhp/ci (8000 bhp/500 ci). And they run pushrod engines just like Nascar. Granted, TF engines have pretty much unlimited boost, nitromethane fuel and they only have to run for about 4 seconds at a time under full power. But, by your reasoning, they make F1 technology look archaic. Just saying.


Bah. 5.16 bhp/ci for an F1 engine vs 2.31 is all I need to see. Nascar sucks.

[IPD]

my $.02:

race engines should be kept as simple as possible if costs are going to be kept down. grand am series is exemplary in this realm.

i myself LOVE DOHC, but the technology behind it--as utilized in F1--becomes prohibitively expensive. the season cost for one F1 team would essentially fund the entire field of grand am contestants (just a SWAG). pushrods tend to have lower costs overall; even though they come with the penalty of having more moving parts.

the "Sweet Spot" for simplicity & performance is probably a quad-valve, variable-valve-timed SOHC. pretty pricey though.

[UTRacerX9]

Can you say "carburetor"? Can you say "flat tappet camshaft"? Can you say "MINIMUM ROD WEIGHT OF 525 grams"? Nascar technology doesn't suck, it's quite remarkable considering the artificial regulations placed on them. How about comparing F1 to the average Top Fuel drag race engine? They make about 16 bhp/ci (8000 bhp/500 ci). And they run pushrod engines just like Nascar. Granted, TF engines have pretty much unlimited boost, nitromethane fuel and they only have to run for about 4 seconds at a time under full power. But, by your reasoning, they make F1 technology look archaic. Just saying.

LOL Way to "prove" your point. So, with unlimited boost, nitromethane fuel, only have to run 4-5 seconds, and with engine displacement that is 4 times that of an F1 car, they make F1 look archaic. Go sell crazy someplace else.

[UTRacerX9]

...There's no need to fix what isn't broken. Nascar stays true to it's roots/fans, for the most part. It's what the fans want to see.

I do wish the cars were more based on their street counterparts though, like they used to be. :(

Jeremy

I'm not arguing that point, NASCAR was never and will never be known as pushing the envelope when it comes to technology, because it's supposed to be based on production cars. So to have someone argue that the technology in Nascar even approaches that of an F1 car is lunacy.

[IPD]

I'm not arguing that point, NASCAR was never and will never be known as pushing the envelope when it comes to technology, because it's supposed to be based on production cars. So to have someone argue that the technology in Nascar even approaches that of an F1 car is lunacy.

nascar isn't even close to its base. there's more similarity between a funny car & nascar than there is between either one and a production car.

[NOMIEZVR4]

that article looked pretty interesting, can anyone who read the 'whole' article post cliffs?? :p

[BaadVR4]

Not selling crazy. It was your assertion that the only measure of technology was bhp/ci. It's you who is selling "my apples are better technology than your oranges". I think OP was trying to say Nascar engine technology, considering all its limiting regulation, is doing a remarkable job. I just pointed out that your argument, applied to bananas compared to your apples, make your apples look anemic. So, if my argument is "crazy", so is your original comment about how and why Nascar sucks.

Here's another analogy: Which boxer has the greater skill, one who has one hand tied behind his back and wins 2/3rds of his matches or one who has no limits but wins 95% his matches? You can't say. Different parameters.

If you don't like Nascar, don't watch, don't buy the T-shirts; don't support it in any way. And support away in F1. But don't disparage an entire genre's technology when you really don't have enough information to make such value judgements.




LOL Way to "prove" your point. So, with unlimited boost, nitromethane fuel, only have to run 4-5 seconds, and with engine displacement that is 4 times that of an F1 car, they make F1 look archaic. Go sell crazy someplace else.

[DocWalt]

F1 isn't that much more advanced than any other racing series in regards to the engines, especially since they're limited to "regular" gasoline. The biggest issue they have with advancing on the power front is the lack of metal matrix composites in the engines. All racing series have silly regulations to artificially limit power. In fact, the high performance engines without as many silly regulations would be Top Fuel dragsters. Street cars might even be more advanced than most racing engines in a lot of ways.

[R/T93]

The 3.0 liter V10's unresrtricted were over 1000 hp, 21-22k rpm.

There have been some cutbacks in top fuel, too, they cant run 100% nitro anymore, I think its closer to 75% this year. Also they made them reduce downforce on the wings.

[UTRacerX9]

Not selling crazy. It was your assertion that the only measure of technology was bhp/ci.

Incorrect. I only MENTIONED one thing. I could go on for hours as to how/why F1 employs a far higher level of technology. But nice try putting words in my mouth. Now, let's go back to YOUR assertion that Nascar is just as high tech as F1. I believe you started by asking me if I'd ever heard of a carburetor? Yeah, that's real high tech there... :rolleyes3:

And if you're going to be a pansy and bring up restrictions, do you think that F1 doesn't have restrictions on their engines??? How about no turbos? How about an RPM limit? Engine size limit? If you want to make up hypothetical scenarios all fucking day, be my guest. The fact remains, as it is RIGHT NOW, Nascar technology is woefully behind F1. Don't like it? Don't participate in threads like these.

[HilbillyHomeboy]

Incorrect. I only MENTIONED one thing. I could go on for hours as to how/why F1 employs a far higher level of technology. But nice try putting words in my mouth. Now, let's go back to YOUR assertion that Nascar is just as high tech as F1. I believe you started by asking me if I'd ever heard of a carburetor? Yeah, that's real high tech there... :rolleyes3:

And if you're going to be a pansy and bring up restrictions, do you think that F1 doesn't have restrictions on their engines??? How about no turbos? How about an RPM limit? Engine size limit? If you want to make up hypothetical scenarios all fucking day, be my guest. The fact remains, as it is RIGHT NOW, Nascar technology is woefully behind F1. Don't like it? Don't participate in threads like these.



You're coming across a bit on the harsh/jerk side. How about you make your stance/argument without all the name calling?

Jeremy

[UTRacerX9]

If some fool is going to ask me if I've heard of a carburetor while simultaneously making a lame argument that Nascar is as high tech as F1, I really don't care. :)

[HilbillyHomeboy]

His point was looking at what they're relegated to, the innovation, power output, and sustainability, is quite impressive. The same can, for sure, be said about F1. Which I believe was the intent of the article and thread.

Jeremy

[DocWalt]

His point was looking at what they're relegated to, the innovation, power output, and sustainability, is quite impressive. The same can, for sure, be said about F1. Which I believe was the intent of the article and thread.

Jeremy

bingo.

[BaadVR4]

Tritto.


bingo.

[TooFast4Radar]

Bah. 5.16 bhp/ci for an F1 engine vs 2.31 is all I need to see. Nascar sucks.
We can agree on something at least....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDHToD3NmmA

[91stealthrt2]

I've never really watched F1 much before, but finally started this year. They actually have pretty awesome reliability for the most part.