Parity

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Trev Campbell

I too have been disappointed by the Nissan's performance this year I was certainly expecting a step forward. Not to make excuses tho, have Nissan been hamstrung by being the first cab off the rank, so to speak, of the new manufacturers. As the rules specified that the engine had to be configured and make power in the same manor as the pushrod engines. (Which I never understood) While the Merc's and Volvo's having come in a bit latter have been given configuration concessions.

Do Nissan need to go back to the drawing board and build an engine in a way they know makes power and then submit that to V8Supercars.

Any Thoughts ???

But Nissan was the first of the new manufacturers into the COTF world. They announced early 2012 that they were entering in 2013. So arguably had an entire year to knock up a competitive powerplant, to establish supply lines & development paths with NisMo Japan and the Nissan casting foundry in the USA to get blocks, heads and whatever else they need to be made.

Erebus shortcut the system by having their German partners knock up their engines... but they were not competitive straight away... and it took local fettling to get them remotely close to the mark. Even now there is still a hole there, but the team is developing them.. and hasnt given up... or relied on the help of the contracted mother ship to get them a step up.

Volvo has been absolutely outstanding, the boys and girls at Polestar need a huge rap for the work they have done on getting the powerplant right. Its not perfect... the driver says its quite peaky and from the wheelspin it sometimes has, the torque curve might not be too kind to the tyres... but all fixable... it certainly seems to spin up quite quickly..

Why has Nissan given up? Budget issue?

[BrentJackson]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Why has Nissan given up? Budget issue?

Considering it sounds like Nissan is about to get into one of the most expensive forms of motorsport on Planet Earth (LMP1-class sports car racing) and the Zeod project is eating up racing money like its popcorn, it might be a (relative) lack of funds holding things up. Is Kelly and the guys working on their own engines, or just relying on Nismo?

[bluesport]

Maybe the Nisans could run E10 instead E85.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by BrentJackson

Considering it sounds like Nissan is about to get into one of the most expensive forms of motorsport on Planet Earth (LMP1-class sports car racing) and the Zeod project is eating up racing money like its popcorn, it might be a (relative) lack of funds holding things up. Is Kelly and the guys working on their own engines, or just relying on Nismo?

You could indeed be right, but how much is the Nissan contribution to the budget? The difficulty here is that Nissan Australia has decimated the team that brought Nissan into V8Supercar, and reallocated the marketing responsibility for that resource. No love?

[RedZedMikey]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Why has Nissan given up? Budget issue?

I'm not sure that "given up" is appropriate. The new head castings they are waiting for are to be made in their production facility (in USA I think); as such they have to wait for a convenient gap in production to ensure minimal disruption to production. To stop a flowing production facility for a small one-off run would not be cheap; how many heads would they make?

I wonder if Nissan made a boo-boo by basing their V8SC motor off the 5600cc VK56 motor. They have ended up with a very different bore/stroke configuration to Volvo; should they have used the 4500cc VK45 as a starting point?

Volvo took a 4400cc motor with 94mm bore x 79.5mm stroke, and ended up with a 95.5mm x 87.1mm 4990cc motor, utilising a flat plane crank.

The VK45 used in Japanese GT500 (Super GT??) is 93mm x 82.7mm, and the same motor is the base for Nissan's current LMP2 motor. These motors both have flat plane cranks, like the Volvo and Merc. Perhaps Nissan didn't use this because they didn't think they could, or were told they couldn't, use the flat plane crank? Regardless, they could have ended up with a similar bore/stroke to the Volvo instead of the oversquare 102.69mm x 75.31mm that they have ended up with.

I haven't spent a long time looking, but I couldn't find the bore/stroke for the V8SC Ford/Holden/AMG engines.

[bluesport]

I would have thought that a longer stroke would be better for low down torque.

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I would have thought that a longer stroke would be better for low down torque.

Yes, and the Nissan has a very short stroke if those figures are correct. Also, that massive piston surface area would likely be poor for combustion, particularly at the lower rpm. Plus low piston speeds resulting in less intake air velocity. All wrong. It would likely be happy at 10,000rpm+

[GTRMagic]

Nice work NisMo

[bluesport]

I think that has been the problem when engine design goes offshore, they design the engines more suited to what they are accustomed to, fast flowing circuits, and not to the tighter tracks that we have here.

[mikuni]

I seem to recall Kelly Racing developed the engines themselves. It was only late or even after last season that they called on NisMo for assistance. Apparently they used off the shelf components to get a bit more out of the engine, but I believe the limiting factor is in the heads, specifically the port size and proximity to water galleries, which is a limiting factor on many engines.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by mikuni

I seem to recall Kelly Racing developed the engines themselves. It was only late or even after last season that they called on NisMo for assistance. Apparently they used off the shelf components to get a bit more out of the engine, but I believe the limiting factor is in the heads, specifically the port size and proximity to water galleries, which is a limiting factor on many engines.

Kelly Racing is now NisMo Australia..

[RedZedMikey]

Originally Posted by mikuni

Yes, and the Nissan has a very short stroke if those figures are correct.

The figures come from the Kelly Bros own website - and yes, very short. I was keen to try and find the AMG/Holden/Ford specs as well as the Volvo to see if Nissan were alone in their short stroke spec.

Jack Daniels Racing

[Trev Campbell]

Originally Posted by RedZedMikey

Volvo took a 4400cc motor with 94mm bore x 79.5mm stroke, and ended up with a 95.5mm x 87.1mm 4990cc motor, utilising a flat plane crank.

The VK45 used in Japanese GT500 (Super GT??) is 93mm x 82.7mm, and the same motor is the base for Nissan's current LMP2 motor. These motors both have flat plane cranks, like the Volvo and Merc. Perhaps Nissan didn't use this because they didn't think they could, or were told they couldn't, use the flat plane crank? Regardless, they could have ended up with a similar bore/stroke to the Volvo instead of the oversquare 102.69mm x 75.31mm that they have ended up with.

I haven't spent a long time looking, but I couldn't find the bore/stroke for the V8SC Ford/Holden/AMG engines.

IIRC and I could be wrong, I think the original regs specified no flat plain crank, the OHC engines were supposed to be pretty much as identical to the pushrod versions as possible. But I think Merc said you either let us use it or we don't play in your sandpit. So they got their freedom. There was a bit of an uproar when the Merc arrived and sounded different and the flat plane crank was noted as the reason.

Would they be better off scrapping the motor and going to a revised LMP2 motor ???

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Trev Campbell

IIRC and I could be wrong, I think the original regs specified no flat plain crank, the OHC engines were supposed to be pretty much as identical to the pushrod versions as possible. But I think Merc said you either let us use it or we don't play in your sandpit. So they got their freedom. There was a bit of an uproar when the Merc arrived and sounded different and the flat plane crank was noted as the reason.

I suspected the same about the flat plane crank but I haven't been able to verify it anywhere.

While looking though I did find some other info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VK_engine

A flat-plane crankshaft version of the VK45DE was used by Nismo for Super GT races with the Nissan GT-R instead of using the GT-R's VR38DETT twin-turbo V6 engine.

http://www.v8supercars.com.au/news/e...w-power-course

They have what is called a flat-plane crank as opposed to most V8s that have a 90-degree crank. It has more in common with a four-cylinder crank than a V8. It had to stay that way, because Mercedes has never built an engine with a conventional crank so the V8SC technical rules were modified to allow the difference.

Does the production Nissan VK56DE have a cross-plane crank? The Wikipedia reference to the Super GT engine may hint at that?

[JAFA851]

Well if that's the case, surely Kelly Bros / Nismo should be taking V8SC to task over it, and claiming costs etc to build the engine they wanted in the first place and were denied. Rules for some and rules for others? Wonder how much the V8SC bosses got in the back pocket to allow Merc that crank?

That quote above about the crank having to be flat plane because Mercedes has never built an engine with a conventional crank is the biggest load of **** V8SC have ever come out with. Why bother having rules and regulations if they are going to chop and change them whenever they feel like it? On the strength of what V8SC have done there, anyone should be able to roll up and say " we have never built a V8 engine so how about we use our 2L DOHC twin turbo", and be allowed to. It makes a total farce of the whole category, and pulling stunts like this only proves they will never ever be the worlds' best touring car category like they keep trying to trumpet.

[bluesport]

I think V8 supercars are doing everything they can to keep as many manufacturers as possible on the grid. Personally I don't see the category as being in such a strong position as to be able to stand over the new manufacturers, with the upcoming demise of Ford and holden manufacturing in Australia there must be a question mark over their continued involvement in the sport.........the category needs the manufacturers more than they need the category.

[Chris - Melb]

I haven't read all this thread, but keep in mind that the new manufacturers power plants are based on disparate engines from roadgoing vehicles. Holden and Ford are using similar off-the-shelf motors that are designed to go motor racing.

V8 Supercar has a difficult task to get the parity just right and it seems clear that despite having multi-valves, the newcomers need extra freedoms to gain equality (except for Volvo maybe!).

[JAFA851]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I think V8 supercars are doing everything they can to keep as many manufacturers as possible on the grid. Personally I don't see the category as being in such a strong position as to be able to stand over the new manufacturers, with the upcoming demise of Ford and holden manufacturing in Australia there must be a question mark over their continued involvement in the sport.........the category needs the manufacturers more than they need the category.

You are dead right there, but V8SC have screwed over Nissan by telling them they can't run that crank but then later when getting Mercedes into the series, telling them yes you can run that crank. How does that encourage more manufacturers to enter? They'll be wondering how level the paying field is and where the hidden potholes are. Nissan have every right to be extremely ****ed off, and **** like this turns the series into a laughing stock and hardly encourages other manufacturers to enter.

I've been a die-hard ATCC / V8SC supporter since I was old enough to glue my eyes to the tele every Sunday, but between all the bullshit stunts V8SC keep pulling with chopping and changing the qualifying and race format each round, changing rules to suit daily, outrageous decisions and penalties by the DSO's, having to endure Matt White and his stupid viewer polls every 5 minutes, and the 888 juggernaut turning it into a procession ( although not just recently ), I'm finding it very hard to maintain my interest. I can see myself becoming the dreaded once a year race fan, for Bathurst. They even stuffed Clipsal by splitting the Saturday race.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by JAFA851

You are dead right there, but V8SC have screwed over Nissan by telling them they can't run that crank but then later when getting Mercedes into the series, telling them yes you can run that crank. How does that encourage more manufacturers to enter? They'll be wondering how level the paying field is and where the hidden potholes are. Nissan have every right to be extremely ****ed off, and **** like this turns the series into a laughing stock and hardly encourages other manufacturers to enter.

Nissan should have pushed harder for what they wanted. Erebus had the advantage (in this case) of having almost zero time to make changes to the preferred spec, while the Nissans had a whole year to figure out if the package would work or not. if Nissan had the equivalent of Simon McNamara aboard, do you really think the matter would have dropped? A flat plane would have been politicked into the Nissan...

It makes Volvo's input shine... just amazing!

[Mixer]

Keep in mind ferals that we have not found anything proving that Nissan was forced to use a cross-plane crank... I suspect it is the case, but I also suspect the donor engine runs a cross-plane crank and that very well may have been part of the decision making process.

Either way I do NOT think the crank is the issue. I'm NO engine expert but the engine being fairly oversquare seems like a very strange choice in a rev-limited series:

An oversquare engine allows for more and larger valves in the head of the cylinder, lower friction losses (due to the reduced distance travelled during each engine rotation) and lower crank stress (due to the lower peak piston speed relative to engine speed). Due to the increased piston- and head surface area, the heat loss increases as the bore/stroke-ratio is increased excessively. Because these characteristics favor higher engine speeds, oversquare engines are often tuned to develop peak torque at a relatively high speed.

So it seems Nissan handicapped themselves, this engine design would seem to lack in torque delivery, especially low down.

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by JAFA851

Well if that's the case, surely Kelly Bros / Nismo should be taking V8SC to task over it, and claiming costs etc to build the engine they wanted in the first place and were denied. Rules for some and rules for others? Wonder how much the V8SC bosses got in the back pocket to allow Merc that crank?

That quote above about the crank having to be flat plane because Mercedes has never built an engine with a conventional crank is the biggest load of **** V8SC have ever come out with. Why bother having rules and regulations if they are going to chop and change them whenever they feel like it? On the strength of what V8SC have done there, anyone should be able to roll up and say " we have never built a V8 engine so how about we use our 2L DOHC twin turbo", and be allowed to. It makes a total farce of the whole category, and pulling stunts like this only proves they will never ever be the worlds' best touring car category like they keep trying to trumpet.

I wouldn't get too wound up over that aspect, as the base engine that the Erebus race engine is based on has a cross plane crank, so the statement by V8 Supercars is simply not true. To argue we have to use it because it is what we have just doesn't work, and I'm not sure why V8 Supercars would have put that on their website.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by mikuni

I wouldn't get too wound up over that aspect, as the base engine that the Erebus race engine is based on has a cross plane crank, so the statement by V8 Supercars is simply not true. To argue we have to use it because it is what we have just doesn't work, and I'm not sure why V8 Supercars would have put that on their website.

Have you got a source for that?

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Have you got a source for that?

listen to it. It's cross plane. That's your source.