Sunday at Laguna Seca

On 10-08-18 18:34 , Walter Banks wrote:


Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-08-18 14:13:21 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-08-18 15:31 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-18 09:41:11 -0700, Alan Browne

Here is one of those cars, worth several million$$$$, being raced quite
hard on Sunday.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4253w.jpg

Is that a turbocharger? Looks like two turbines, back to back with a
single compressor. Or am I completely wrong?

Twin Roots Superchargers, 8 cylinder, 215 bhp, dry weight 1545 lbs.

New meaning into blown straight eight. Nice car.

Not really a straight eight but two fours back to back.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-08-19 9:18 , Peter wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

The only rental co. I really avoid if I can is Alamo. They usually
have their lots way, way, way off the large airports.


On one rental occasion I had to return three different cans, because of
mechanical defects. the third was because the brakes failed.
IMHO all rental companies suck in that they have no realistic provision
for roadside assistance. We were on a vacation and the rented Prius
wouldn't lock. It took 45 minutes of listening to how important I was to
them, before they told me to bring it to their nearest location, about
an hour away. I simply told them: the location of the car for the night;
it was their car' and I would not be responsible if it got stolen.

Given the hundreds of cars I've rented over the years I cannot at all
fault Hertz or Budget in any instance. The few times there has been
something wrong (including me locking keys in the car in LA) I have had
on site help within an hour. Once I dropped a car at a different
location because of a bad vibration and I had a second car and out the
lot within 5 minutes of pulling in.

Europcar have been good as well - and that includes upgrades to a Benz
on many occasions.

Only problem in Europe is that if you need a large vehicle for whatever
reason (lots of gear or needing to move a lot of people) the daily rates
are exorbitant compared to N. America.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-08-19 22:23 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-19 15:24:50 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-08-18 18:19 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-18 15:00:38 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-08-18 17:34 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-18 14:13:21 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-08-18 15:31 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-18 09:41:11 -0700, Alan Browne

Here is one of those cars, worth several million$$$$, being raced
quite
hard on Sunday.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4253w.jpg

Is that a turbocharger? Looks like two turbines, back to back with a
single compressor. Or am I completely wrong?

Twin Roots Superchargers, 8 cylinder, 215 bhp, dry weight 1545 lbs.

Ouch. Fuel consumption must have been horrible. At least with turbo
the wastegate is open most of the time. Still, one hell of a
power/weight ratio for the day.

It has two inline banks of 4 cylinders, which is why the twin blowers,
one for each bank, are positioned where they are.

That was plain enough, but has little to do with the number of
blowers, it's more about volume and pressure. eg: a larger blower
could have had a split output to each "engine".

I am glad that was plain enough.Those motors were on the outer edge of
the development envelope, and they were beyond "state of the art" for
the day.


Twin turbos are more common on V-8's (V-n's) as the exhaust and intake
manifolds make it an easier ducting job.

So? This is how the Alfa engineers did it then.

Today AUDI/VW's engineers have taken the same concept into mating motors
to created larger multicylinder motors. for example those found in the
Lamborgini, Bentley and Rolls Royce V12's (all developed from 2xVW V6's)
Bugatti Veyron, a V16 from 2 W8 V8's and quad-turbo chargers producing
1,1845 bhp @ 1200psi.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...swagen_W16.jpg

The VW engineers are working on both ends of the problem for the exotics
and for the fuel economy minded. You mind consider seeing if they are in
anyway interested in some of your ideas.

I'm not claiming special knowledge. However when most people hear
"turbo" in the automobile world, economic fuel consumption is far from
their interest - it is instead to get high output at the expense of
consumption. In today's world such vanity is a silly waste.

I'm sure that VW know (as they have shown it) that the only time a turbo
helps fuel _economy_ is when it is used with the smallest practical
engine for a given car (regardless of the size of the car).

When it is used with "muscle" engines it can only increase power far
beyond practical locomotive needs of the vehicle and hence economy will
suffer. This is why engines such as the smaller TDI's render such good
economics (turbo / diesel). There is no magic in the "diesel" part
except that the engine is very robust and hence can operate at peak
efficiency (with turbo) over long periods. A standard small gasoline
engine cannot survive such a punishing load for very long. (I assume a
"robust" small gasoline engine could be built, but there is a small
leverage effect for diesel due to the stoichiometric ratio and the
higher energy content of diesel.)

The _entire_ notion of a fuel economical turbo engine is to extract work
from the exhaust gases _as much as possible at all times_. The "muscle
car" use of turbo does not do that - it only uses the turbo for high
output needs, eg: at the drivers whim for acceleration. During cruise
the turbo is unused and the exhaust energy is wasted.

As to my ideas, I had the idea of a turbo generator over 10 years ago
but it was highly impractical with the generators/alternators of the
day. Now it is practical due to advances in generator design. (See
"thingap turbo generator)"). My application was to offload the engine
of all the "draggy" accessories (parasites). Thingap are there - I'd
expect to see their system in production cars within 5 years.

With such, a car "needing" a 150 hp engine could get by with a 125 hp
engine without loss of "performance" (where performance="zip"). That
means a lighter engine, lighter drive train, lighter wheels, etc all
contributing to lower fuel consumption for acceleration. It's all about
compounding effect.


Still it got a top
speed of 140mph, and won the first time it was raced, beating AutoUnion
& Mercedes.

As far as fuel consumption goes? ...that's what pit stops are for.

My interest in auto energy is to reduce consumption, not use pit stops.

Sorry. Can't help you.

Back then they were looking for power, to translate to speed. These were
racing machines, not new econo-boxes. As I said when I started the
thread, if you are in anyway "green" this stuff might not be for you.
Different times, different goals.

This is not an "econo-box" only solution set. In larger vehicles the
losses due to having oversized engines wasting energy (not using the
turbo, excessive parasitic load, etc.) could be significantly shaved
resulting in a smaller displacement engine (less weight) with little or
no loss in "thrill" - though that's not an objective IMO.

My notions of turbo chargers come from aircraft engines where the use is
especially to maintain manifold pressure with changes in altitude. This
adds to the fuel economy of aircraft engines (in a round about way).

Today's rules, F1 cars have to finish the race with the fuel they have
on board at the start. No refueling pit stops are permitted. So much of
the development research is going into fuel economy vs power vs weight.

True enough. But such technology would be better invested at the
"common" end of the car market where fuel economy comes from minimizing
weight and maximizing fuel load without pushing for acceleration and speed.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-08-20 20:35 , Walter Banks wrote:


Peter wrote:

I had planned to go to the Rhinebeck Aerodrome to see a WW I
re-enactment. We passed right by it last weekend, but had
other plans on Saturday and Sunday it rained. So all depends
on the weather. So far I am leaning towards Rhinebeck. Dealing
with the Hampton crowds on Saturday are not worth it.


My vote is Rhinebeck. It has been a while but it was nothing
short of amazing when Cole Palen was still alive. I was there
one weekend when a J-3 was cutting a streamer out of a roll of
toilet paper. The paper went into the J3 air intake and shut
it down just as it disappeared behind the trees. It landed in
a field out of sight, pilot pulled out toilet paper and propped
it from behind, reappeared about 5 minutes later. WWI can do
and it can happen.


How do you cool a WWI radial engine. Hang onto the crank shaft
and let the engine turn.

Again gyroscopic forces had quite an effect on the
small/light/shortcoupled aircraft that such engines were attached to.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:



How do you cool a WWI radial engine. Hang onto the crank shaft
and let the engine turn.

Again gyroscopic forces had quite an effect on the
small/light/shortcoupled aircraft that such engines were attached to.

Cole Palen had ax handles on the lower wings of the DR1 to
take the brunt of the force when it dropped a wing on landing
(almost a ground loop) Cole Palen described a landing with the
DR1 when he ground looped recovered and then ground looped the
other way. The ax handles were added after the first few ground
loops.

The DR1 was fundamentally unstable. The stab on it was lifting as
well as the mains unlike most modern AC where the stab has negative
lift. It was short coupled and nasty to fly. But beautiful

w..

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

I remember how I loved the "E" type Jag back in the 50's I couldn't wait
until I started working and had some cash to buy one....By the time I
did,
Jaguar had stopped making them....did they stop making the huge upside
down bathtubs that the American manufacturers were making? Hell no they
didn't!! They dropped the only beautiful thing they had left.....The XKE!
Whatever disease that all the American car manufacturers had caught had
traveled across the Atlantic and infected the British car makers......

There was a burst of management types trying to emulate modern America
around that time and it percolated into city planning as well. The problem
is it wasn't thought through or followed through properly. Big fail all
round. My guess is cars got snarled up in that wave as well.

Not sure what era you are talking about exactly but the recent decade's
Jaguars look incredibly astoundingly bland! Ditto for most Mercedes.

Paul Furman wrote:
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

I remember how I loved the "E" type Jag back in the 50's I
couldn't wait until I started working and had some cash to buy
one....By the time I did,
Jaguar had stopped making them....did they stop making the huge
upside down bathtubs that the American manufacturers were making?
Hell no they didn't!! They dropped the only beautiful thing they
had left.....The XKE! Whatever disease that all the American car
manufacturers had caught had traveled across the Atlantic and
infected the British car makers......

There was a burst of management types trying to emulate modern
America around that time and it percolated into city planning as
well. The problem is it wasn't thought through or followed through
properly. Big fail all round. My guess is cars got snarled up in
that wave as well.

Not sure what era you are talking about exactly but the recent
decade's Jaguars look incredibly astoundingly bland! Ditto for most
Mercedes.

Seems to me the E-type was a 1960s car. There were some real bloopers
in the 1950s and 60s, all over the world. Some 1970s and 80s cars were
pretty good. I'm not very excited about many cars since then. Remember
when we were kids and could recognize and call out the make and model
of every car on the road? Design choices having to do with weight,
wind resistance, and fear of making an ugly mistake have resulted in
cars that are essentially indistinguishable, one brand from another.
There is enough about the Forduars to recognize them sometimes, and
for some reason the Mini looks to me like an Austin-Healey 3000 when
first spotted head-on at a distance.

Otherwise, plenty of newly introduced cars - last three or four years,
anyway - seem to be designed to appeal to cartoon-watchers. Look at
the high beltlines and pillbox windows on Magnums, Camaros, and
Challengers. Ick.

--
Frank ess

In article ,
says...

....

Otherwise, plenty of newly introduced cars - last three or four years,
anyway - seem to be designed to appeal to cartoon-watchers. Look at
the high beltlines and pillbox windows on Magnums, Camaros, and
Challengers. Ick.
^^^

My thoughts exactly. Chrysler especially seems to be enamored of this
look.

D

On 2010-08-23 11:36:49 -0700, "Frank ess" said:



Paul Furman wrote:
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

I remember how I loved the "E" type Jag back in the 50's I
couldn't wait until I started working and had some cash to buy
one....By the time I did,
Jaguar had stopped making them....did they stop making the huge
upside down bathtubs that the American manufacturers were making?
Hell no they didn't!! They dropped the only beautiful thing they
had left.....The XKE! Whatever disease that all the American car
manufacturers had caught had traveled across the Atlantic and
infected the British car makers......

There was a burst of management types trying to emulate modern
America around that time and it percolated into city planning as
well. The problem is it wasn't thought through or followed through
properly. Big fail all round. My guess is cars got snarled up in
that wave as well.

Not sure what era you are talking about exactly but the recent
decade's Jaguars look incredibly astoundingly bland! Ditto for most
Mercedes.

Seems to me the E-type was a 1960s car.

Correct. First produced in 1961, the Jag E-Type was a 1960's road going
development of the 1954-57 pure racing car, the Jag D-Type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_D-Type

There were some real bloopers in the 1950s and 60s, all over the world.
Some 1970s and 80s cars were pretty good. I'm not very excited about
many cars since then. Remember when we were kids and could recognize
and call out the make and model of every car on the road? Design
choices having to do with weight, wind resistance, and fear of making
an ugly mistake have resulted in cars that are essentially
indistinguishable, one brand from another. There is enough about the
Forduars to recognize them sometimes, and for some reason the Mini
looks to me like an Austin-Healey 3000 when first spotted head-on at a
distance.

You mix up a Mini and an A-H 3000 head-on?

....and in my opinion one of the best looking, and functioning cars to
come out of the 70's & 80's were the Mercedes 230/250/280/380SL, all
with the same basic body lines, with subtle tweeks from year to year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3_380sl_us.jpg



Otherwise, plenty of newly introduced cars - last three or four years,
anyway - seem to be designed to appeal to cartoon-watchers. Look at the
high beltlines and pillbox windows on Magnums, Camaros, and
Challengers. Ick.

The tragedy of the influence of the "street designers" from the custom
& hotrod school of fashion, without the 30's sense of Art Nuveau sleek.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-23 11:36:49 -0700, "Frank ess" said:


and for some reason the Mini looks to me like an
Austin-Healey 3000 when first spotted head-on at a distance.

You mix up a Mini and an A-H 3000 head-on?


Ayuh.

http://www.fototime.com/6C52FB892D1072C/orig.gif