Peformance engine building - more art or more science?
Moderator: Team
A long time ago when I used to race karts people found some engines were faster than the others, even though they came from the same factory, they called these freak engines. Then someone started measuring the ports of the of the freak engines compared to others and found the cast position of the ports were slightly different. Now these guys can open up a new engine that has never run and tell you if it's going to be a freak engine
Magic is just unexplained science
Magic is just unexplained science
-
revolutionary
- Guru
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:43 pm
- Location: Colleyville, TX
-
automotive breath
- Guru
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location:
To answer the question, we must define the word "art".
"What is "art?"
How best to define the term “art” is a subject of constant contention; many
books and journal articles have been published arguing over even the
basics of what we mean by the term “art”. Theodor Adorno claimed in
1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident.” Artists,
philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists and programmers all use the
notion of art in their respective fields, and give it operational definitions
that are not very similar to each other. Further it is clear that even the
basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the
centuries, and has changed within the 20th century as well.
The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for
creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express
the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities,
or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things.
Often, if the skill is being used in a functional object, people will consider
it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many
Contemporary Craft thinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a
commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art,
or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called
applied art. Some thinkers, for instance, have argued that the difference
between fine art and applied art has more to do with the actual function
of the object than any clear definitional difference. Art usually implies
no function other than to convey or communicate an idea."
"What is "art?"
How best to define the term “art” is a subject of constant contention; many
books and journal articles have been published arguing over even the
basics of what we mean by the term “art”. Theodor Adorno claimed in
1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident.” Artists,
philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists and programmers all use the
notion of art in their respective fields, and give it operational definitions
that are not very similar to each other. Further it is clear that even the
basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the
centuries, and has changed within the 20th century as well.
The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for
creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express
the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities,
or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things.
Often, if the skill is being used in a functional object, people will consider
it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many
Contemporary Craft thinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a
commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art,
or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called
applied art. Some thinkers, for instance, have argued that the difference
between fine art and applied art has more to do with the actual function
of the object than any clear definitional difference. Art usually implies
no function other than to convey or communicate an idea."
-
Tokyo Torquer
- Pro
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:57 am
- Location:
- Contact:
Gee some of you rugged, masculine engine building types obviously have another side and got rather deep and philispohical about the "art" question.
I do like the point someone made about art involving human emotion, but I would also suggest that the "art" happens when we are not sure of the science or the cause/effect. This happens a lot in medicine. You apply what seems to work for you most of time even if you aren't sure exactly why... and this only becomes possible from long experience and some trial and error.
I do like the point someone made about art involving human emotion, but I would also suggest that the "art" happens when we are not sure of the science or the cause/effect. This happens a lot in medicine. You apply what seems to work for you most of time even if you aren't sure exactly why... and this only becomes possible from long experience and some trial and error.
1973 RS Z28: 401ci Dart Little M, Littlefield 8-71 supercharger @14lbs boost, Callies Magnum crank, Lunati rods, JE pistons, 7.8:1, AFR 227 Comp heads, T&D 1.6 shaft rockers. Reed solid FT cam (240/250@.050-.523/.542 lift-112 LSA), QFT 750 carbs
Much of science is triggered by those with creativity/artistic ability.
25 years ago, as poor youngsters, we used to fit the next-smaller capacity, stock, dished-pistons in our stroker Euro-motors. The true science racers with their custom forged items would call us cowboys because we almost achieved the same result at 1/4 cost.
'The creative 'cowboys' got on their horses and rode em'..........gave the 'scientists' something to think about!
25 years ago, as poor youngsters, we used to fit the next-smaller capacity, stock, dished-pistons in our stroker Euro-motors. The true science racers with their custom forged items would call us cowboys because we almost achieved the same result at 1/4 cost.
'The creative 'cowboys' got on their horses and rode em'..........gave the 'scientists' something to think about!
-
David Redszus
- Guru
- Posts: 9633
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Without quest this is the one area that separates the hobby builders than my build 10 to 20 engines, from a huge shop like Sunset or R&M that do that in a week! Those large shops may be totally clueless about what Art is, but they can afford to tweak there formula for the Eng, they make a bazillion times and see what happens.
I'm convinced that's how they make some of these engines that make big power. Throw some up against the wall and if it sticks they have a new better formula for the next one.
Home hobby builders on there own have no way to do that, unless they just buy the same parts and even then you may not be given the same parts that represent the excellent one.
Never the less, as a hobby builder the satisfaction of making a decent engine that lives is un-matched.
Anyone with the coin can pick up the phone a order an engine. Few have the nuts to roll their own. 
I'm convinced that's how they make some of these engines that make big power. Throw some up against the wall and if it sticks they have a new better formula for the next one.
Home hobby builders on there own have no way to do that, unless they just buy the same parts and even then you may not be given the same parts that represent the excellent one.
Never the less, as a hobby builder the satisfaction of making a decent engine that lives is un-matched.
Anyone with the coin can pick up the phone a order an engine. Few have the nuts to roll their own. Paul
Adv Et Dragracer
Adv Et Dragracer
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.
The scientific method involves experimentation.
You look at something, study it, take as much data as possible, and make an educated guess (hypothesis) as to how it works/how to make it better.
You then test this idea with experiments. (dyno or track time)
You then look at the data and see if it matches up to your hypothesis.
Science involves experimentation. Exprimentation is actually part of its definition. Science involves many trends that have been verified repeatedly, but also includes the scientific method.... which is how the 'problem solving' is done.
You look at something, study it, take as much data as possible, and make an educated guess (hypothesis) as to how it works/how to make it better.
You then test this idea with experiments. (dyno or track time)
You then look at the data and see if it matches up to your hypothesis.
Science involves experimentation. Exprimentation is actually part of its definition. Science involves many trends that have been verified repeatedly, but also includes the scientific method.... which is how the 'problem solving' is done.