Peformance engine building - more art or more science?

[cboggs]

The art in building a racing engine is the ability to stay one step ahead of the science-only crowd. When a number crunching only pure science style engine builder gets something working, he applies every possible formula until his columns add up. That eventually brings about a better, more complete refinement...eventually. By, then, the more intuitive type builder may be off grasping toward the next brass ring. The two approaches will swap being at the head of the pack. As WJ has said, "race cars should be pure science, but stubbornly refuse to not be an art". With him having said that, I'll back away from this potential pissing match and just wait for the next guy, who obviously can kick WJ's ass to explain why WJ is wrong.

Nothing says it better then Ron's post, .. and WJ's quote.

I have a fair amount of "science", .. and a big dose of "art", .. and do be good
you really can't have one without the other.

I see too many engineers get caught up in the "math" of building engines
when it's time to stick it in the car and just try it.
Then there's some that are pure "art" that could stand a good
dose of "science", ..

One VERY famous engine builder, and still competitive today, ..
has a huge amount of "art", .. and a very big dose of "science"
but still has to chase things with trial and error on the dyno & track, ..
why, .. NOBODY fully understands the physics of our world and NO
math formula can really explain it. ( I can hear the engineers groaning )

I think it's takes both to excel, ..

Curtis

[MadBill]

By definition, research involves doubt and the possibility of failure. I used to be involved in preparing documents for tax breaks on such work, and a major part was to demonstrate that results were unpredictable and that failure was an option. It actually helped our cause to report some unproductive dead-end experiments.
As the saying goes: "Show me an engine builder that stands head and shoulders above his peers and I'll show you a man standing on a pile of broken parts."

[RW TECH]

The trial & error part is called "validation". I feel most of the "art" comes into play with techniques when putting the "science" into application.

I'll stand on my comments in my first post in this thread. Racing isn't building space shuttles or conducting heart transplant surgery. Therefore, funding, staffing, equipment resources, and in general public demand are extremely limited. That makes trial & error become a bigger requirement for racing than other technology/science-related subjects.

Either way, validation is ALWAYS required. The purpose of doing real engineering work is to narrow things down so that rediculous amounts of money & time aren't spent on experiment after experiment, and to ensure there's some kind of road map to obtaining the desired result.

[MadBill]

..The purpose of doing real engineering work is to narrow things down so that rediculous amounts of money & time aren't spent on experiment after experiment, and to ensure there's some kind of road map to obtaining the desired result.

In other words (Zora Arkus-Duntov's in this case): "It is not necessary to build a swimming pool to determine that a bowling ball won't float."

[Mr. P.]

...I was just wondering what % of this is science and what percent is art in performance engine building. What are your thoughts??

mike

The only time artfulness is required is when the customer requests and pays for it LOL. IMO "performance engine building" is mostly a technical exercise - you order stuff from suppliers and follow proven recipies and procedures. There is a degree of craftsmanship but it's not all that creative.

But performance engine/vehicle development takes genious. Genious is abstraction, or being able to step back from the problem at hand and seeing the bigger/underlying picture (whether it is a technical, logistical, or interpersonal problem). Genious is lateral thinking, or thinking out of the box. Genious is insightfulness. Genious is critical thinking. Genious is being able to reframe the problem and attack from a new direction. These are skills that can be taught and learned btw, and sadly are not in our public school system.

Another discipline that reveals true genious is tuning, and in my experience here is where you discover the guys that can really visualize what's going on inside the combustion chamber from those that can't. Those that can't are the ones with a long string of broken parts behind them.

Simple trial and error IMO is not genious - it's just wild-assed guessing (I call it Darwinistic Engineering lol). However using your noggin and coming up with a theory and validating it (hypothesizing and using the scientific method) is IMO genious at work.

But all that said, wherever there is creativity there is also the chance to be artistic or render your solution in an emotion evoking way, and some people are very artful and others are "utilitarian". I do see a lot of artfulness in the automotive sphere, I really enjoy it and look for it - when you look in the engine bay and get a raging woody that's art!!! LOL Seriously if the 'creation' evokes feelings of any kind like speed, powerfulness, elegance, efficiency, sexiness, outrageousness, etc then that's artful IMO. When what you see communicates to you the values embodied by the builder then that's art. Compared to looking under the hood of say a 2000 Ford Explorer LOL no artfulness to be found there even though we have to admit technically it's a very workable solution to the customer's problem.

Mr. P.

Another thought - Smokey Yunick was a genious of the first order, but I would not consider his creations as making artistic statements!

[SWR]

IMO "performance engine building" is mostly a technical exercise - you order stuff from suppliers and follow proven recipies and procedures. There is a degree of craftsmanship but it's not all that creative.

Mr. P.

I don't call that "performance engine building". You're not building anything then,you're assembling one. Doesn't require much "art" to rob a Summit catalog and throw bits together. If you're really building one however,about 25% of the stuff in there cannot be bought from any catalog but has to be ordered to spec from what you feel you need from experience,math and gut feeling,and atleast 25% of the remaining bits are from other makes or made/modified with your own hands,the TIG,bandsaw,mill,lathe...

Doing "Art" in this case also has to be able to see the "complete solution" and the goal is to kick rear-end on every other motor made with those stock-ish base parts (block/head) that you know of or can find on the web. Then you're building one. That's my take on it,and I much prefer to work with the latter even though there's more money in assembling a load of off-the-shelf parts to a given recipe.

No challenges,no learning. If you build a turd and you have to admit it just did not work,it's just a positive learning experience.

[n2omike]

It all comes down to one's definitions of 'art' and 'science'.

Some here seem to think following the scientific method of coming up with a theory, making an educated guess (hypothesis), and testing it is 'art', where it's really the definition of science.

Science is NOT an absolute. Science is the methodical search for the nature of the way things work. Science is the PURSUIT of the knowledge that describes how things work.

All engines follow the laws of physics. They don't break the rules that science has taught us. However, understanding EVERY single nuance that takes place in an engine, and having a deep understanding of how every single one affects all others in every single scenerio is beyond us. We simply get a general understanding of the basics, and use our knowledge and experience to apply the scientific method the best we can in order to 'build a better mousetrap'.

Some may call the application of the scientific method an 'art', but it's really the application of science... which is beautiful in its own right.

To me, art is a conveyance of emotion or aesthetics. Art is not 'craftwork', either. Emotion does not make an engine faster... and neither does chrome. Craftwork is not 'art', it's craftwork. Excellent craftwork is a REQUIREMENT for successful engine building, but I wouldn't call it art. It requires tedius precision, just like creating a good painting, but is not simply done for emotional or aesthetic reasons. It's done to allow the parts to work together as well as possible. I guess they may invoke an emotional and aesthetic response, which might be an 'artful' bonus, but that's not what makes the engine run better.

[xanadu]

The internal combustion engine and its components are pure genius.
Tell a customer who is automotive illiterate how a distributor works
and most of them are absolutley amazed at how it works.
Alot say who designed that? And how the Heck? And so on.
It is familiarity that makes it all seem simple to the seasoned technician.
I think there will always be, at least in my life time, more treasures to be unvailed in the internal combustion engine, it is up to those who take a passion in what they do, which creates Art, to find those little Gold bullions
in each treasure box. Each new find either correlates with science and or puts a twist on what is already scientifically documented. IMO...

[Ron E]

xanadu, very well put. Some search for and embrace that emotional aspect of raising the bar. That, for me has an artistic component. If someone else doesn't, fine. Everyone has their reasons and motivations.

I know more than once, we've "found something" based on intuition. After the fact we try to numerically define it so it can be refined. But, I'm so not worried about the competition who needs mathematical reasoning to just try something.

[Greezer]

mathematical reasoning

That messes me up.

Imagination and free thought with some Golden Ratio guidance may enhance the already artistic Fibonacci Numbers and Golden sections in Nature. Whoa:twisted:

[David Redszus]

After carefully reading the very articulate responses to the issue of art vs science, some things become more clear.

Engines (as is the rest of the vehicle) are a matter of pure science and art has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I would respectfully challenge anyone to show where "hunches", "intuition", "creativity", or any other form of "art" has ever produced performance improvement.

Every single thing that an engine does conforms to the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics. Just because someone does not understand them does not make the process exempt from them.

Modern engines are no longer built by trial and error except at the lower levels of racing. You simply do not build a Formua One engine by trial and error and hunches. Engine designers rely entirely on science, not art.

Even engine assembly no longer requires art. Modern engines are assembled by robotic processes that are more precise, consistent and much faster than any human.

Once upon a time, racing technology was well ahead of production car technology and racing lead the process of improvement and change. That is no longer true today. Racing technology has fallen far behind due to restrictive rules, undereducated participants and the desire to make racing "everymans sport".

Racing has always been the sport of kings....and genius.

[Ron E]

After carefully reading the very articulate responses to the issue of art vs science, some things become more clear.

Engines (as is the rest of the vehicle) are a matter of pure science and art has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I would respectfully challenge anyone to show where "hunches", "intuition", "creativity", or any other form of "art" has ever produced performance improvement..

Of course the end result is pure physics. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Racing engines are all about the race the public doesn't see. That's the race for the next "edge" against the competition. The ability entertain the next move, and it's effects, the changes required to implement, and a million more considerations are the things I'm talking about. Not setting valve lash or some other physical task. If there's time, and the initial concept shows a glimmer of promise, obviously the refinement process becomes more and more scientific.

You really should call WJ and set him straight on that. Also, I believe it was Duckworth who, after testing a new chamber design with a measurable increase in power, admitted being somewhat amused at how his engineers would flock around it to discover the reason. They were his engineers and he was paying them. He wanted every possible scientific explanation. But, his intuition was the sole reason they had something to flock around. Intuition was his term, not mine.

Every single thing that an engine does conforms to the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics. Just because someone does not understand them does not make the process exempt from them..

You're not teaching a class here. Stating the obvious is more condescending than helpful.

Modern engines are no longer built by trial and error except at the lower levels of racing. You simply do not build a Formua One engine by trial and error and hunches. Engine designers rely entirely on science, not art..

Duckworth, that dumbass! No damn wonder Cosworth never got off the ground.

Even engine assembly no longer requires art. Modern engines are assembled by robotic processes that are more precise, consistent and much faster than any human..

If you need two hundred engines off this line every day, agreed. Are we talking about OE or racing?

Once upon a time, racing technology was well ahead of production car technology and racing lead the process of improvement and change. That is no longer true today. Racing technology has fallen far behind due to restrictive rules, undereducated participants and the desire to make racing "everymans sport"..

It depends your definition. Yes, OE cars have digital everything. These restrictive racing rules have resulted in unbelievable refinement. 358 CI 800+ HP endurance push-rod 2 valve engines with 1 carb and flat tappets? Tremendous technology was required on every level for this to be reality. How many times were what was once thought to be "the limit" redefined for this to happen. 500" push rod engines with making 1400 HP with lowly carbs.....It's a bit elitist, and to me a little sad if you can't appreciate this.

[Mr. P.]

IMO "performance engine building" is mostly a technical exercise - you order stuff from suppliers and follow proven recipies and procedures. There is a degree of craftsmanship but it's not all that creative.

Mr. P.

I don't call that "performance engine building". You're not building anything then,you're assembling one...

Agreed - I meant "assembly", please forgive the miscommunication. I believe we share the same ideas :thumbs:

Mr. P.

[jimivice]

Tokyo Torquer; There are no hard and fast rules. The art is applying the science. If the science was so cut and dry, you would not have such a divergence of opinion. It becomes a matter of interpretation. Yes the engine is just an "air pump": but how do you make the air pump more efficient. Ask "ten" different engine builders and you will get "ten" different answers. The answers are based on how they interpret the science. Science is based on theory but not actually proven-accepted-yes. My physics Professor,made a statement, Physics is based on theory, once the theory is questioned or dissproved, what once was accepted now becomes questionable. If the theory holds true so does the science. There are those that are willing to give text book answers and there are those that will give you"seat of the pants answers", all they know- is what works. Somewhere in-between you have to choose. You take the scientific and the unscientific and your own knowledge, and try to make an informed decision. In esscence that is science, questioning the accepted norm, or applying it- to see if the theory holds true. That is the beauty of science- there are no boundries. There is room for the artist.

[David Redszus]

Science is based on theory but not actually proven-accepted-yes.

There is a large difference between a theory and a hypothesis. They are often used interchangably but are not the same.

A theory is an explantion of how something actually works. It has been tested extensively.

A hypothesis is a proposed theory that has yet to be proven. Once proven to work it becomes a theory.

If no exceptions to a theory are ever found, we then call it a law. That does not mean that laws cannot be broken, it means we have not yet observed that fact.