Jump to content

Black Magic

Members
  • Content Count

    1,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Black Magic last won the day on February 17

Black Magic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

944

Recent Profile Visitors

2,297 profile views
  1. I was sort of thinking that the spot the intake went would no longer be the driver cabin (move firewall a few inches)
  2. I think if you firewall it from driver you are all clear. Maybe cut a panel out of firewall to make a mandrel bent "u" and send the inlet back up front to base of windshield. Using sheet metal make a panel to close off the firewall where you cut it out. Be careful of the "neon" problem where the intake bits poking out the hood block your apex vision on hilly tracks....one of the few cars i have ever raised the seat on..... I have seen "wrong way" intakes done with fwd v6 engines put in rwd cars.
  3. Does an AWD car have to run split diffs front and rear then I didn't see what wording was retained, when we looked at it was assumed to be written as "final drive" Many FWD already had this option under the rules, as the cars could be ordered with different OEM gearing for any engine option (neon is this way)
  4. Ditto.... My car brand lives this nightmare.... You cannot close the hood on a neon 2.4 swap without reusing the neon intake, or significantly modifying the intake (or relocating and resizing the rad). The interpretation in the east has been this (retain neon intake in 2.4 swap) is 50 points, same as an intake swap. Waiting to see if you can significantly modify the intake to fit for zero points, otherwise the options on a neon are the mailbox\mad max intake several inches above the hoodline (PT style intake), or neon intake and points.
  5. You sure? Some of us had multiple final drive configurations offered on the same platform....
  6. Don't know. No idea if tech would include that as a common generation or not. In a practical sense the 1.6 and 1.8 cars are only 50 points apart. I would think given the advantages of the 1.8 motor and the added fuel capacity would make a 1.6 car 50 points slower in speed. To run up front (at least in the east at reasonably open tracks) I would assume both 1.6 and 1.8 cars would need to be swapped to do it. The swap vpi would be of more interest to me.... which is the same for 1.6 and 1.8 NA
  7. The rule intent was to make the part offered for any model of a car generation open for use. That would be all NA miatas. I think the explanation of what year ranges are considered a "generation" could stand alot of work. Maybe something graphical. This was also tied into the swap debate, as "generations" had to be determined so the same data was used for year ranges that should effectively be the same car.
  8. Add to that, if you take the number of unique car types (possible) the rules have to service....I would bet we are well below one page per car type..... I wonder many days if the extreme allowed car diversity is a detriment....
  9. Sort of....when you send it in to be refilled and recert you need to go over with them the condition the bottle needs to be in. Short answer, you can't mail pressurised systems easily and they can't mail them back easily. You will be much better off finding a local guy to charge it with gas once you get it back.
  10. For the same laptime, your primary consideration for range will be the fuel to weight. Find a similar cornering potential car and see how your fuel to weight stacks up, assuming you know their range (and your aero drag is at least somewhat in the ballpark)
  11. Ditto. Some radios (like digital) require the signal ground from the mic (the 4th wire) to function. You wind end up with the listen only option, which for some drivers is an upgrade in both laptime and team cohesiveness....
  12. Slugworks and i were talking about gain (power) for conversion from hydro. The advantage from a power standpoint would be one "stage" better going electric driven hydro\hydro with pulley resize for narrow rpm band operation, and true e rack being even better than those two options. This is all based on the "straight ahead" power losses each have when running at track speed, not turning the wheel. I was making sure that his debate about it being not much power was comparing hydro to electric driven hydro. I could agree this is less than hydro to true electric with capacitive storage, which is the change i assumed everyone was talking about. If you needed to run assist all will be better than a vintage hydro setup from.a power standpoint, from a pair to a few hp. With most people not running power, the gain in on track acceleration could be debatable, but i also can see the concern that if free people would flock to it vs any hydro setup (might be a spend creep, at least for the teams with older\smaller drivers).
  13. I forgot to ask an critical question, You talking remote electric motor driving a hydro pump, or a true e rack with no hydraulics? Small difference in power gain, the electro driven hydro pump being obviously less of a gain (more akin to picking a better pulley size).
  14. Interesting to think of it this way, but i would assume a diesel or large engine to have less loss than a small engine with a hydro power setup (and low idle high redline). Smaller engine operational rpm range. If we could limit the engine rpm range the pump could be resized\pulley speed changed to get the losses way down. From articles written by turn one, Chrysler papers, the nasa article, and others the power number is between 2 and 5 hp, potentiality more with older designs (some of us lean that way age wise). It will depend on the pressure control used used in the pump (sets low speed pressure) and the pump size\bypass flow rate used. The old trend was towards lots of flowrate and pressure, as steering gear got better this got lower. If you site an old enough article the engine rpm will be so low that the power numbers may actually be underquoted. Anyway as a range of power from 2 to 5 hp (i am used to newer gm "type 2" style pumps to be specific) much like electric water pumps the power gain from going electric is measurable, gets bigger with larger idle vs max rpm speed ranges and would be some gain in acceleration potential over a mechanical\hydro system. If you want to debate it being free i would have gone with the argument that most teams run depowered anyway, so the only gain over them would steering effort\driver strength. We do have alot of older guys driving we don't want to run off. Or maybe aim for the low side of 2 points per hp and more like 5 points for the "gain".
  15. I have more data for this, but confidential data from other vendors. The losses for power steering are a factor for us in speedway qualifying, and has been measured and tweaked for years. 3 to 5 hp for a street car pump wouldn't be out of the ballpark, for applications where full pressure needs to be available at idle and the engine is run at 6 to 8 times idle speed (the pump will have the same pressure but increasing flow rate as speed goes up adding to power loss the wider the speed range the worst this can be). I would assume electric systems to have some capacitive element, reducing the need to burn power prepping for steering input. If you could have some hydraulic capacitance you could change the pump to have no straight ahead pressure and the power loss would be real low. Either way the hydro system suffers alot of its power loss because you cannot control pump speed and turn the pump far too fast for what is needed when on track (to make it reach bypass pressure at idle). Hydraulic systems would not be a limit when at part throttle, true....my point was that this causes the electric system to pretty much never be a 3 to 5hp limiter to power at the wheels (push pedal harder), hydro systems of the 80s and 90s will have a 2 to 5 hp reduction in max hp you can apply undet WOT conditions, which might be 1/3 to half of your total time on some tracks.
×
×
  • Create New...