David Redszus wrote: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.
David Redszus wrote: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.
David Redszus wrote: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.
David Redszus wrote: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?
David Redszus wrote: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.