ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8641
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by CamKing » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:07 pm

In-Tech wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:03 pm
Mike, I hope you are getting paid.
You can count on that.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

In-Tech
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:35 am

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by In-Tech » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:22 pm

CamKing wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:07 pm
In-Tech wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:03 pm
Mike, I hope you are getting paid.
You can count on that.
:mrgreen: You've earned it. =D>
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8641
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by CamKing » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:22 pm

mekilljoydammit wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:04 pm
I mean, and this is an honest question, how do you have something where there's avenues for technical development / new configurations (engine, chassis, whatever) these days where a manufacturer can't/won't just funnel more money at it for an advantage?
You can't. Money will always buy you an advantage. No matter what the rules package.
For me, I liked most of the rules they had in the IRL, when it started, but even those were too restrictive for me.
The manufacturers had to sell the engines, or all the parts for the engine. If the team bought the parts, they could do their own port work, change cams, run different pistons, etc. They were restricted to a given RPM, Bore, Stroke, and airbox.
At first, everyone was running all manufacturer supplied parts. Then at Phoenix, one of the low budget teams showed up with cams that they had Crower regrind from a set of spec cams, and they lapped the field. I was already working on new billet cams, and by the end of the year, the guy running the Crower cams had to switch to an engine running my cams, just to make the race. The next year, I had 29 of the 33 starters, running my cams, and they lost to a Roush engine that had an "innovative" port design that gave them a huge power advantage.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8641
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by CamKing » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:23 pm

CamKing wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:22 pm
mekilljoydammit wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:04 pm
I mean, and this is an honest question, how do you have something where there's avenues for technical development / new configurations (engine, chassis, whatever) these days where a manufacturer can't/won't just funnel more money at it for an advantage?
You can't. Money will always buy you an advantage. No matter what the rules package.
For me, I liked most of the rules they had in the IRL, when it started, but even those were too restrictive for me.
The manufacturers had to sell the engines, or all the parts for the engine. If the team bought the parts, they could do their own port work, change cams, run different pistons, etc. They were restricted to a given RPM, Bore, Stroke, and airbox.
At first, everyone was running all manufacturer supplied parts. Then at Phoenix, one of the low budget teams showed up with cams that they had Crower regrind from a set of spec cams, and they lapped the field. I was already working on new billet cams, and by the end of the year, the guy running the Crower cams had to switch to an engine running my cams, just to make the race. The next year, I had 29 of the 33 starters at Indy, running my cams, and they lost to a Roush engine that had an "innovative" port design that gave them a huge power advantage.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

In-Tech
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:35 am

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by In-Tech » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:30 pm

I like rules too. Rules make innovation shine.

Innovative Technologies In-Tech

Being sued for a few billion dollars helps you realize a lot of things. Base 10 math and Base 16 math is just a starter. :mrgreen:
Heat is energy, energy is horsepower...but you gotta control the heat.
-Carl

ptuomov
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2140
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:52 am

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by ptuomov » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:31 pm

With the risk of the thread drifting, would the following engine rules make reasonable level playing field:
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- A specified restrictor plate thru which all air must go into the engine
- Known gasoline fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone

Of course the money would still make a difference, but the relative importance of chassis, driver, and tires would probably increase.
Paradigms often shift without the clutch -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxn-LxwsrnU

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8641
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by CamKing » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:56 pm

ptuomov wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:31 pm
With the risk of the thread drifting, would the following engine rules make reasonable level playing field:
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- A specified restrictor plate thru which all air must go into the engine
- Known gasoline fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone

Of course the money would still make a difference, but the relative importance of chassis, driver, and tires would probably increase.
I don't like the restrictor plate, because it adds a lot to the development costs.

This is what I'd go with
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- Maximum compression ratio
- Known fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone
- Maximum 4 valves per cylinder
- Must run valve springs
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

pamotorman
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by pamotorman » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:20 pm

aero is as important as HP these days as they spend as much time in the wind tunnel as the dyno room.

hoffman900
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:42 pm

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by hoffman900 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:22 pm

CamKing wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:56 pm
ptuomov wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:31 pm
With the risk of the thread drifting, would the following engine rules make reasonable level playing field:
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- A specified restrictor plate thru which all air must go into the engine
- Known gasoline fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone

Of course the money would still make a difference, but the relative importance of chassis, driver, and tires would probably increase.
I don't like the restrictor plate, because it adds a lot to the development costs.

This is what I'd go with
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- Maximum compression ratio
- Known fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone
- Maximum 4 valves per cylinder
- Must run valve springs
Mike,

In your experience, why would restrictor plate engines require more development than an open engine?

Also, the Scott Tucker DSR was just nuts.
-Bob

peejay
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by peejay » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:05 pm

Newold1 wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:30 pm
Heck, with the computers of today the SIMS and the Artificial Intelligence WHY even use drivers !!!Its probably coming to tracks near you soon ! OH for Joy ! :roll:
Supposedly, they had the ability to do this in F1 around ten-fifteen years ago.

tpepmeie
Member
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by tpepmeie » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:58 pm

CamKing wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:22 pm
You can't. Money will always buy you an advantage. No matter what the rules package.
For me, I liked most of the rules they had in the IRL, when it started, but even those were too restrictive for me.
The manufacturers had to sell the engines, or all the parts for the engine. If the team bought the parts, they could do their own port work, change cams, run different pistons, etc. They were restricted to a given RPM, Bore, Stroke, and airbox.
At first, everyone was running all manufacturer supplied parts. Then at Phoenix, one of the low budget teams showed up with cams that they had Crower regrind from a set of spec cams, and they lapped the field. I was already working on new billet cams, and by the end of the year, the guy running the Crower cams had to switch to an engine running my cams, just to make the race. The next year, I had 29 of the 33 starters, running my cams, and they lost to a Roush engine that had an "innovative" port design that gave them a huge power advantage.
Mike, For what it's worth, I love reading your tales from those IRL days! Wish you'd start a thread dedicated to that here or over on the old Trackforum, where there used to be a lot of good technical discussion.

ptuomov
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2140
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:52 am

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by ptuomov » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:47 pm

CamKing wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:56 pm
ptuomov wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:31 pm
With the risk of the thread drifting, would the following engine rules make reasonable level playing field:
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- A specified restrictor plate thru which all air must go into the engine
- Known gasoline fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone

Of course the money would still make a difference, but the relative importance of chassis, driver, and tires would probably increase.
I don't like the restrictor plate, because it adds a lot to the development costs.

This is what I'd go with
- Minimum weight for the engine
- Maximum displacement
- Maximum rpm
- Maximum compression ratio
- Known fuel formulation that comes from the same tank for everyone
- Maximum 4 valves per cylinder
- Must run valve springs
Some comments:
- Restrictor plate engine may require more development initially, as there is more extant knowledge about open engines. In the long run, though, the additional hp benefit from additional dollar invested will decline relatively quickly with a restrictor plate engine. The mass flow starts choking and stuffing more $100 bills into the engine will only do so much when the air flow is choking.
- If the rpm is limited to a relatively low level, the metal valve springs rule is probably redundant. I don't think there's a large benefit from pneumatic springs at low rpms, but of course don't know this for sure. However, adding the limitation that one must run metal coil valve springs surely doesn't make the rules worse if we're looking to contain costs.
- The compression ratio requirement probably makes sense, as it's going to reduce cost to have that limit even with the rpm and restrictor plate.

Of course, then the big budget teams will start looking for other things to spend on. I'd for sure auction of the tire rights to a single company for the whole season and then have every team have the same selection of tires.

Got no answer to aerodynamics limitations, seems like they can always spend more money productively on a new bank of computers when designing aero.
Paradigms often shift without the clutch -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxn-LxwsrnU

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8641
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by CamKing » Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:38 pm

ptuomov wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:47 pm
- Restrictor plate engine may require more development initially, as there is more extant knowledge about open engines. In the long run, though, the additional hp benefit from additional dollar invested will decline relatively quickly with a restrictor plate engine. The mass flow starts choking and stuffing more $100 bills into the engine will only do so much when the air flow is choking.
You may want to talk to some of the NASCAR guys.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

ptuomov
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2140
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:52 am

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by ptuomov » Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:48 pm

CamKing wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:38 pm
ptuomov wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:47 pm
- Restrictor plate engine may require more development initially, as there is more extant knowledge about open engines. In the long run, though, the additional hp benefit from additional dollar invested will decline relatively quickly with a restrictor plate engine. The mass flow starts choking and stuffing more $100 bills into the engine will only do so much when the air flow is choking.
You may want to talk to some of the NASCAR guys.
The guy who sits next to me at Celtics used to own a team with his friends for a couple of years. I'll ask him! But in the mean while, can you explain where's the cost coming from? Is it just transitional cost when a different size plate is introduced? Or is there some reason why restrictor plate engine development is more expensive even in the long run with a constant plate diameter?
Paradigms often shift without the clutch -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxn-LxwsrnU

hoffman900
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:42 pm

Re: ECR GM LS Daytona Prototype engines

Post by hoffman900 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:08 pm

I mean, it costs more in NASCAR because you have two specs of engines to develop. If the rules are restricted from the get-go, and I decide I want to allocate say $5 million to develop and engine, I'm going to dump $5 million into the program whether it was unrestricted or not.
-Bob

Post Reply