Smaller turbo engines and bigger wheels planned for WTCC - Page 3

stedevil · 28 Nov 2008, 22:57 (Ref:2343591)

http://www.touringcartimes.com/news.php?id=2974

2 news in 1 day from FIA/WTCC that actually makes sense? Sounds 2 good to be true. TCT, you do know it's not 1st of April today?

Valker · 29 Nov 2008, 11:57 (Ref:2343779)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stedevil

Of course in the real world, where you might come across non track perfect surfaces, possibly even covered with snow or ice, a FWD car has a better chance of taking your, and your family, from A to B without hitting a truck in the opposing lane after losing control.

Bull ****. I prefer RWD on snow and ice too. You can loose control of FWD car too and it's much easier to handle sliding rear with gas pedal than try to stop FWD under steering and make it turn with left foot breaking... At least for me.

Clive Brown · 29 Nov 2008, 17:05 (Ref:2343891)

stedevil , you can keep your FWD on any surface you like ! It has just three intrinsic handling characteristics ; understeer , more understeer , and terminal understeer ! As your Chevrolet Lacetti loses front-end grip on ice , and the car carries straight on into a pine tree , killing yourself and all aboard , the last sound you will hear is that of me laughing at your ignorance of chassis dynamics .

Meanwhile , the estimable Valker , having entered the same curve and noticed the front end of his BMW starting to run wide , will have wound on a bit more lock , got onto the throttle , and safely negotiated the corner in a perfectly-controlled tail-out oversteer slide .

There is a perfectly fair way to equate the performance of a turbo engine with a naturally-aspirated motor . If a turbo motor boosts at one bar over atmospheric pressure , then it can be half the capacity of the n/a motor ; if it boosts at two bars over atmospheric pressure , then it can be a third of the capacity of the n/a equivalent . This is an entirely fair and equitable method , because the internal combustion engine is after all simply a gas pump , and its output should be directly proportional to both absolute inlet pressure and its swept volume .

Perhaps , stedevil , BMW should be further punished for its superior technology by making them use an all-cast iron , 2 valve per cylinder , pushrod motor , a three-speed non-synchromesh gearbox , and a live rear axle suspended on semi-elliptical leaf springs ?

nickyf1 · 29 Nov 2008, 18:14 (Ref:2343912)

handbags at ten paces!

stedevil · 29 Nov 2008, 19:48 (Ref:2343966)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valker

Bull ****. I prefer RWD on snow and ice too. You can loose control of FWD car too and it's much easier to handle sliding rear with gas pedal than try to stop FWD under steering and make it turn with left foot breaking... At least for me.

I've driven a lot with both RWD and FWD and and I LIKE RWD more (the tail happiness is FUN) but the "understeering" is a lot easier to recover from than the sudden snap of the backend stepping out in RWD (in worst case right into the opposing lane of traffic). It's all about learning how to drive a FWD. You just can't do like you would do in a RWD, or you end up off the road. Panicking and breaking is counter productive in FWD. You got to either (mild understeer) just lift the foot of the gas or (heavy understeer) power out of the situation. Breaking just adds even more understeer on slipper surface. That is what most people who only know how to drive RWD do wrong when in a FWD car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

stedevil , you can keep your FWD on any surface you like ! It has just three intrinsic handling characteristics ; understeer , more understeer , and terminal understeer !

Are you seriously this clueless? Please do yourself a favour and google for "scandinavian flick". Might save your life if you happen to be driving in a FWD car one day.

Quote:

This is an entirely fair and equitable method , because the internal combustion engine is after all simply a gas pump

Actually you are wrong. A combustion engine is a thermal delta engine, not a gas pump. That is also why your proposed method of equalization is wrong. Compression affects heat, and thus the power equation, to a large degree. Now I also gave you a clue what intercoolers is all about and why eg F1 teams have limits for how much they are allowed to cool their fuel.

nickyf1 · 29 Nov 2008, 22:27 (Ref:2344024)

most people dont know the difference between FWD and RWD anyway, nevermind how to control it.. A normal drivers reaction to losing control would be hitting the brakes, so all of youre points Clive are invalid

mattt · 29 Nov 2008, 22:33 (Ref:2344029)

my car is fwd and does understeer, but you just have to ease of the throttle a bit and just keep steering

and also the other day it drifted round a roundabout, so again it was ease of and apply a tiny bit of opposite lock.

btw, i've only been driving 6 months so it isn't complicated

nickyf1 · 29 Nov 2008, 22:37 (Ref:2344031)

im just saying, the other day I saw a guy in a Honda CIvic Coupe try to do a burnout type drift out of a carpark and cunched into a brick wall

stedevil · 30 Nov 2008, 02:21 (Ref:2344084)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickyf1

im just saying, the other day I saw a guy in a Honda CIvic Coupe try to do a burnout type drift out of a carpark and cunched into a brick wall

Well, a bad driver can bin anything. That you in some countries can next to find a driving licence at the bottom of a cornflake package of course doesnt help the situation. But at least here in Sweden you can't even get a driving license without passing a required basic course in how to recover from loss of grip and how to make a high speed (70km/h) avoidance manoeuvre (steering round eg a virtual Moose).

JMeissner · 30 Nov 2008, 11:36 (Ref:2344184)

Okay guys, enough off topic please, keep the thread about the planned rule changes to WTCC.

werner · 30 Nov 2008, 23:32 (Ref:2344517)

ENOUGH OFF TOPIC

stedevil · 2 Dec 2008, 14:45 (Ref:2345705)

http://www.touringcartimes.com/news.php?id=2987

Well, seems Lada is already struggling with exactly the problem I've been talking about for the last year... lack of 2.0 NA engines...
Might be a big problem if they are not allowed to keep lugging that 20+ year old Opel engine around, from model to model...

stedevil · 2 Dec 2008, 15:05 (Ref:2345713)

Thinking further... how exactly is the Chevy Cruse going to manage the same?

AFAIK, there wont be a 2,0L NA for it either, even in N America (1.4 turbo seems to be the target there).

Guess more people will be lugging that 20+ old Opel engine around for 1 more year until they finally will be allowed to put a current engine in in 2010.

Clive Brown · 2 Dec 2008, 18:54 (Ref:2345846)

Unfortunately , I've been censored , so as a matter of principle , I will no longer be contributing to this thread . I hope that those of you who have brought about this supression of free speech are all very proud of the parts you have played in denying a platform to an honest opinion , honestly held , and honestly expressed .

Thorney · 2 Dec 2008, 21:21 (Ref:2345924)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stedevil

Thinking further... how exactly is the Chevy Cruse going to manage the same?

AFAIK, there wont be a 2,0L NA for it either, even in N America (1.4 turbo seems to be the target there).

Guess more people will be lugging that 20+ old Opel engine around for 1 more year until they finally will be allowed to put a current engine in in 2010.

They've got dispensation to run the old engines.

Bottom line this is one of thw worst kept secrets in motor racing, if it wasn't for WRC messing about over it (and thats a political issue revolving around the issue of series promotion not tech specs) and we'd all know what was happening.

Bottom line? Not one single manufacturer has or is developing a 2.0 NA powerplant, however all of them (primarily due to emissions regulation, which is presented years in advance so manufacturers can plan) are or have developed smaller capacity FI lumps. Other than the WRC mess the only reason this hasn't been presented is because no-one wants to run a car for single year (its just too expensive).

We've been planning a 2010 entry into BTCC for three years, this isn't some accidental plan but a deliberate issue of timing. The only questions at the moment rest on the actual size of the engine (my guess is 1.6) and the methodolgy of FI and the policing thereof. For ease I'd reckon a common turbo specification, a common displacement and a common boost/inlet are most likely but there could be any combination of turbo/SC for all we can really know.

As for the RWD/FWD argument, well FI will settle that issue quite quickly if you ask me, I'd rather prep a trio of rwd chassis cars with FI than I would FWD but a lot depends on which manufacturers will support who (if anyone).

Bramzel · 2 Dec 2008, 21:29 (Ref:2345927)

And what is 'FI' in your story?

stedevil · 2 Dec 2008, 21:50 (Ref:2345934)

Forced Induction (aka Turbo)

And I guess Chevy getting a dispensation points at that Lada will probably be allowed an exception for 2009 as well. Good to hear (we really dont need fewer manufacturers in WTCC).

PS Nobody was claiming that FWD is better on the racetrack than RWD.

Aslak Vind · 2 Dec 2008, 21:56 (Ref:2345937)

Direct Fuel Injection got to be a must in a modern racing engine as well.

Both from performance and enviromental reasons.

the sniper · 3 Dec 2008, 16:41 (Ref:2346494)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

Unfortunately , I've been censored , so as a matter of principle , I will no longer be contributing to this thread . I hope that those of you who have brought about this supression of free speech are all very proud of the parts you have played in denying a platform to an honest opinion , honestly held , and honestly expressed .

You could always start a new thread, then you wouldn't be off topic...

**touringlegend** · 3 Dec 2008, 23:23 (Ref:2346906)

Clive Brown:
If you think you are being censored then I suggest you read the FAQ's of this site which you agreed to when you signed up. You will soon find where you have went wrong.

juicy sushi · 6 Dec 2008, 16:22 (Ref:2348980)

at the risk of exposing my ignornace, why not just run current group n rules for rallying? those cars are lower budget than s2000 are they not? and they would be faster. you could have all sorts of prouduction relevant technology, in quick, exciting turbo-charged, awd cars, which bmw,VAG, ford, and others all make. and it would allow common rules between the WTCC and WRC. i'd love to see a bmw vs. wrx vs. evo vs. whatever VAG decides to run battle. it could be some good fun...

SGarage · 7 Dec 2008, 08:22 (Ref:2349413)

Quote:

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

at the risk of exposing my ignornace, why not just run current group n rules for rallying? those cars are lower budget than s2000 are they not? and they would be faster. you could have all sorts of prouduction relevant technology, in quick, exciting turbo-charged, awd cars, which bmw,VAG, ford, and others all make. and it would allow common rules between the WTCC and WRC. i'd love to see a bmw vs. wrx vs. evo vs. whatever VAG decides to run battle. it could be some good fun...

The group N regs is dead-end even in rally. That's why FIA is pushing S2000 as well as its "R" concept.

Valenok · 8 Dec 2008, 08:14 (Ref:2350076)

Quote:

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

at the risk of exposing my ignornace, why not just run current group n rules for rallying?

In rally I see only 2 N-group cars - Mitsubibishi Lancer and Subaru Impreza. Where are the rest?

Bramzel · 8 Dec 2008, 16:09 (Ref:2350341)

Group-N won't work, the cars look too normal. They need a bit more beef than that.

nickyf1 · 9 Dec 2008, 15:18 (Ref:2351001)

In Rallying, Group N is on par with Rally S2000 anyway.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Turbo compound engines?	chris1600	Formula One	11	13 May 2008 06:51
Max's Grand New Plan. Spec Chassis and Bio Turbo Engines.	Hazza	Formula One	118	28 Jun 2007 19:21
Turbo CVH Engines	Flat Out Farr	Racing Technology	11	21 Jun 2006 07:29
Advantages of using bigger Wheels	Un0Turb0-WP	Racers Forum	20	14 Dec 2005 17:08
Engines for smaller teams	Edmonton	Formula One	23	27 Dec 2003 17:50