BTCC - want to check how many FWDs there were?Quote:
Originally Posted by pornstar
Printable View
BTCC - want to check how many FWDs there were?Quote:
Originally Posted by pornstar
So your saying with the same money and budget, ud choose an FF for the track?
i'm wondering how you managed to extrapolate that from what was said.Quote:
Originally Posted by pornstar
you made a statement which implied that there were no ff race cars, setanta and i were merely pointing out that this is not the case.
and depending on the track in question, the racing conditions and the cars in question, i might well pick a ff car.
i didnt say there were none, sorry if i sounded like that. just said that they are disadvantaged, and hence why in professional motorsport u see most cars are FR or MR.
ill take FR or MR over FF anyday of the week.
Last time I checked, the BTCC was professional motorsport with budgets that leave Australia's only REAL motorsport (V8 Falcodores) looking like poor cousins.
Want a best case scenario? In the late 80's Glen Seton raced one of two Leyton House CRX Si's in a professional race. Mods were limited by the rules except for suspension and redline mods although the motors could be balanced and blueprinted. The stock ZC powered (Seyton blew the B&B motor the day before, so a crate one was used from Honda) CRX's came 2nd and 3rd to a Supra (RWD note) by less than a second between 1st and 2nd and about 2 seconds for the second rex - only because the Supra was holding out the line. Behind the 3 cars were a variety of RWD and FWD cars including 8's, 6's and 4's.
Please don't talk to me about disadvantage, you are making a gross generalisation.
It is not a generalisation, its physics. FF is disadvantaged compared to FR or MR. The CRX in your case happened to be a better handling car than the Supra, yeh thats great. But would a FR or MR CRX not beat a FF CRX around a track, both cars setup up to their maximum potential?
Im sorry Setenta, but according to ur definations then wouldnt indy cars and other cars be running FF? If there is no disadvantage and if it is only a generalisation, why not go FF?
Ill put it quite simple for u understand, just so that u dont misread or misinterperate what i think. I dont think that FF is shit, or bad in any way. Not my point. My point is that FF is disadvantaged compared to an FR or an MR.
Actually if you know abit about honda history, you should read the articles about the NSX. Now the NSX is a supercar, why is it that Honda even with an NA engine choose MR layout instead of FF? its simple, MR and FR is almost always more advantageous. This DOES NOT mean that FF cars cant be fast or cant win, but in physics and engineering, they are at a disadvantage.
I could put up a whole thesis and even a whole RnD effort by someone in Alfa Romeo GT cups about the advantages and disadvantages of FF and other layouts. Im not going to cos its a waste of bandwidth, think what u will, its my opinion and if u dont agree u can have ur opinion too. I dont quite care.
Pornstar, Setanata and Gingangooly were merley replying to your statement.
"yeah FF is always disadvantagoues comapred to the FR layout. Why do u think all professional Race cars choose FR?"
You said that no professional race cars use FF.
They were merely refuting that statement and providing facts as basis for their refutals.
In the same way that a heart surgeon would not use a broadsword to create an incision in a patient you would not use a scalpel to fight an enemy facing you with a broadsword.
Hence the aphorism "Horses for courses".
Yes your point that FF is at a disadvantage to either FR or MR is correct. However only in an ideal world where you comparing an egg to an egg and not a basketball.
But then again in an theoretically ideal world AWD is the winner.
Yes the "CONCEPT" of FF is theoretically at a disadvantage to FR or MR.
However in the real world how the manufacturer designs the car around the FF/FR/MR setup is what counts.
In design environments or an ideal world such as F1 or Indy where there are no such constraints such as budget or space manufacturers can utilise every concept to their advantage.
However everything on the car is designed as part of a complete system.
By comparing a FF, FR or MR CRX is senseless as unless the car is designed around the concept (FF FR or MR) the original FF car will always win as the car was designed around that layout.
My point is that yes the concept of FF is at a disadvantage to FR or MR but however only in an ideal world and yes an ideal world includes F1 or indy.
In the real world of production cars it depends upon the complete package of the car and how the car is designed around the layout. Whether that be FF, FR, or MR.
In some circumstances and situations FF will be more suitable (read not better) that FR or MR and vice versa.
Regards,
James.
As this thread is titled "How far will NA go",
I wil now go back to topic.
As the technology involved in internal combustion engines continues to increase i believe we will see the relegation of turbochargers to the use of the aftermarket.
You only need to look at the decisions of major Japanese vehicle manufactures to see this trend quite clearly.
For example Nissan has replaced its turbocharged SR20 S15 with a higher displacement VQ35 NA 350z.
Mazda have replaced their turbocharged 13b with the renesis engine in the RX8.
Honda have never really used turbochargers except for a few silly abbhorations like the City Turbo and I cannot see them using them in any more production cars.
That really only leaves Mitsubishi and Subaru still using turbos.
In most circumstances the advances have been possible due to variable valve timing technology which allows an engine to rev higher, create power in the rev range and yet also remain streetable and able to be driven by old ladies. If you have driven a car with a large lumpy high duration high lift cam you will know what i mean.
Something that i have been thinking about lately is actuating the valves in an engine by hydraulic or electric means.
Either using some short of a solenoid or hydraulic system.
This means that the duration or lift of the valve would be infinitely variable throughout the enitre rev range.
To control this you would simply have a third map in your ecu and a crank angle sensor.
This would remove a hell of a lot of reciprocating mass in the engine assembly (i.e. camshafts, gears, belt etc) thereby making it more efficient.
I believe that technology such as this is already in use in F1 and certain motorcycle applications.
Can anybody confirm this?
That's just food for thought anyway......
well in terms of IDEAL conditions ok, and lets not go into motorsport for a second ok? lets look at it IDEALLY...
IN MY >>>HUMBLE<<< opinion, a NA car is better b/c there is no lag. No waiting for the turbo to spool enough pressure, or the centrifugal supercharger to spin fast enough....
NA is better in the ideal sense in that it can provide you with the INSTANT reponse in torque anytime u want, when u want.
2 points
1. around twisties i would think NA would be a bit better as everytime u break hard, u'll probably have a bit of chance ot fall outta boost, hence the long wait before ur power switches back on
2. around track, perhaps turbo would be better as corners tend ot be predictable (no unpredicted braking) and faster corners allows u to stay on boost.
SO THEORETICLALY go NA cos u'll be driving on streets more
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT when the real world comes in the result changes
cos to get power outta na (as we all know) is bloody expensive, go turbo for bang for your buck, keepur turbo smallish so u dont lag too much
and yes i realise in motorsport its exactly the opposite boys, rally cars in twisties use turbo and Shuey in F1 uses NA, but i reckon these are irrelevant comparisons in a sense. I mean can YOU or all of us combined afford a rally car turbo that can maintain low rpm AND high boost? NOPES,
OK in reply:
But then again in an theoretically ideal world AWD is the winner
From what you have said James, Im sure you can give me some good technical information as to why AWD is the winner in an ideal world. Cos going by alot of engineering calculations around, factoring in power, weight, drivetrain loss, traction advantage, driving characteristics, top speed, outright power, MR would be best and not AWD... But Im open as to why in an ideal world the AWD is better. Im not the be all and end all of this debate, so please do enlighten me.
Yes if those responses were in reply to my post, but as I have re-iterated in my later post, Im NOT saying FF cars cannot be made to be fast or competitive to FR or MR or even AWD, but the fact remains that if all things remain constant, the FR or MR has an advantage EXCEPT where power delivery from engine to wheels is concerned, in that case, FF loses less power thru the drivetrain.
as for turbo lag on the street, theres an easy way to fix that, and thats run high compression with low boost, like most turbo hondas that only run 6 psi, the so called "lag" is not really lag, its like u driving a stock car until u hit boost.
Hope that helps
well maybe we can look at this in terms of price ranges....
100,000 dollar budget... u'd spend it on developing something NA, michael shuey style, that has the balance of a NA car, no sudden hike in power, but with enough grunt to hand it down to nething FI
10,000 u go for the for force induction no doubt, as 10,000 in a NA wotn really get u that much... i/e/h/ will set u back 3000 already, an aftermarket ECU another 1000. then a set of pistons, rings, etc to the internals to increase compression or even spend the remaining on a swap and u'd still maybe be making around 20% mor NA power...
compare with
spend the same money on a good turbo kit...