Peformance engine building - more art or more science?

[JBrady]

You can explain works of art with science, but, you cannot use science to "predict" art.

Art imagined the engine. Science explains why it works.

After all... all is "relative".

[torquefan]

how 'bout this one: regardless of the tools one uses, to carve the subtle curves and sculpt shapes required in an intake and exhaust runner is (part of) the artform of the science of engine building.

[Scott H]

how 'bout this one: regardless of the tools one uses, to carve the subtle curves and sculpt shapes required in an intake and exhaust runner is (part of) the artform of the science of engine building.

The late John Britten of roadrace motercycle fame was an artist by trade. DaVinci was too. Yet both were inventive designers. Your analogy is correct, IMO. I'll bet Darrin OR Curtis or Larry could be handed a random cylinder head and if forced to not use their flow benches could port and return the head with 98 -99% of the flow they could deliver with the help of their benches. This is because of their application of science and experience. IMO, the experience part = the art. That is the ability to translate the science to a 3d shape in dumb cast iron or aluminum. Hmmm! Sounds like the start of a Head Master's Challenge. Grin!

[n2omike]

The science is what makes it run good, as all engines follow the laws of physics.

Many are saying people use 'art' in order to get good science. This is a mis-understanding.

The scientific method of using knowledge to guide and test new ideas is not art. It is science. Craftsmanship is not art. It is attention to detail.

Art is not the only thing out there that involves imagination. Imagination is a necessary, integral part of the scientific method.

Art involves a conveyance of emotion and aesthetics.... Neither of which make an engine more powerful.

[RW TECH]

The science is what makes it run good, as all engines follow the laws of physics.

Many are saying people use 'art' in order to get good science. This is a mis-understanding.

The scientific method of using knowledge to guide and test new ideas is not art. It is science. Craftsmanship is not art. It is attention to detail.

Art is not the only thing out there that involves imagination. Imagination is a necessary, integral part of the scientific method.

Art involves a conveyance of emotion and aesthetics.... Neither of which make an engine more powerful.

Very well stated, and possibly why things like racing engines and other technical/scientific subjects get blurred into the category of "art" since they all require the ability to imagine/visualize.

[MadBill]

How about: "A header/collector with painstakingly optimized diameters, tapers, transitions, internal finish, etc. is science. Its flawless welds and voluptuous, chassis-hugging curves are art."

[n2omike]

How about: "A header/collector with painstakingly optimized diameters, tapers, transitions, internal finish, etc. is science. Its flawless welds and voluptuous, chassis-hugging curves are art."

I'd call nice welds good craftsmanship. The routing of the tubes, if done solely for aesthetic purposes might be artful.... but form follows function.

This doesn't mean that proper form can't be pretty, or even downright beautiful!

[torquefan]

How about: "A header/collector with painstakingly optimized diameters, tapers, transitions, internal finish, etc. is science. Its flawless welds and voluptuous, chassis-hugging curves are art."

HOLD ON! THIS IS A FAMILY SHOW HERE! LOL my point exactly.

[JBrady]

Science is mankinds meager attempt to explain the art of God.

Where does inspiration comes from anyway? (hint: see above)

Don't get hung up in arguments over the "Christian" "God" or any other religious following. At the core is simply the concept of intelligent design. How that design has been deployed and how it will continue to unfold is why human's have created science (or did we?) in an attempt to understand and predict. Even the most lauded astrophysicists contend that we must at some point suspend the laws of physics to explain creation. If that is not supernatural I must misunderstand the concept.

Dark matter and dark energy anyone?

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" Isaac Newton 1676

Science is history. Through the history of the scientific process "truths" have been developed. The educated engine builder will rely on these "truths" to employ proven designs and most importantly GUESS at the effects of designs not apparently defined by the scientific experience of the builder.

Building an engine requires the use of science. Science will help in envisioning untested potentials but in the end all NEW ideas are inspiration. After the fact it is easy to say, yes, well, obviously that holds true to the laws of nature.

Some would say that Michelangelos statue of David was contained in the marble before the work began. Others would say it is simple science to explain the tools and methods used in the craftmanship. To any that miss the beauty known as ART in the inspiration for any creation has a very narrow concept of the term.

[Unkl Ian]

There is art, and there is Art.

[mach9]

Definitely science AND art IMHO. The bore/stroke, valve size, port cross section, ect, calculations and parts selection would definitely be science. Making/machining parts and a lot of the assembly would surely be art. A sheet metal intake would be a good example. A lot of science goes into the design, selecting runner length, cross section, and plenum volume, among other things. But, making the components and welding it together...that HAS to be the work of an artist. Any of you guys out there that can do both, well, I HATE you. MJ

[jimivice]

To David Redzsus; You are so predictable. I knew as soon as I gave my explanation of theory you would hit me the hypothesis statement. You are a text book junkie. You are so eagerly to split hairs or come up with something to make us less educated feel inferior. To the rest of you science is an art. Science conforms to certain principals and logic. Art has no logic. The most artistic expression about science is "Think Outside the Box". Science boxes you into the common thought, yes certain principles must be adhered to but the ultimate question is "What If"? If scientists didn't ask the "What If" question or go against convential thinking- we will still be in the stone age.

[Greezer]

You are a text book junkie

Whoa! Mr. Redszus' posts don't deserve that kind of beating.

If

That's the word/question in the middle of l-if-e.
Now, how about some if and only if

Dark matter and dark energy anyone?

Yes, say you harness energy from the 'dark side'.
Dark matter may shine with invisible dark light
London, Nov 1 (ANI)

[jimivice]

Greezer: I don't know if you have personel experience with David Redszus? If I offended you ? I must apologize. I have issues with Mr. Redszuz. I'm not a pro (like yourself) I'm just a opinunated contributer on this sight like most contributers. At least they are speaking from experience and I have no problem with them. But! Mr. Redszus - I have a problem. His answers are too pat and talks down to people on this sight. I have chased him down and questioned his credentials - but no response. He talks a good game but what has he done. Please fill me in.

[Lazy JW]

....

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

Reckon you have very little appreciation for car shows, eh? Lots of those are built purely as "art".

But that is indeed not about mechanical performance. As was mentioned previously, many folks are confusing "art" with "craft". Building top level performance engines is truly combining science with "craftsmanship".

And no amount of science can ever produce anything as magnificent as Michelangelo's "Pieta". Indeed, no artist ever has either.
Joe