|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
23 Nov 2005, 07:03 (Ref:1468064) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 917
|
HMS engine power advantage clear cut!!!
I have it on good authority that the HMS engines (HSV)now have a solid power advantage and gained 5 car lengths on the Symonds Plain straight over Falcon?
This weekend with the long Gardner Straight will show the advantage for all to see-so watch and comment here after the meeting. Some must remember Craig Lowndes mention on TV of the lack of straight line speed of the SBR engines. He publicly stated "we need more engine power" Trouble for FORD is the three race parity asessment stops at the end of a season so these 2 last races where HSV hosed the lead Falcons for straight line speed dont count!!!!!!!!!!! Falcon has to wait till next season to be assessed for any power disadvantage allowing a balance in power for both brands. |
||
__________________
888 LOWNDES/WHINCUP 2006-2007-2008 BATHURST 1000 WINNERS !!!! Whincup 2008 champion !-the mighty team 888-now FG for 2009 champion ! 'those who choose to ignore history are are doomed to repeat it' |
23 Nov 2005, 07:39 (Ref:1468072) | #2 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,382
|
If ford cant make a powerful engine then its their own problem
|
|
__________________
... without motorsport, what is sport? |
23 Nov 2005, 07:42 (Ref:1468073) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
yes, i watching those HRT cars when The Clowns was right behind them, didn't notice any difference. But maybe the HSVDT and Richo were getting away, or maybe they just had a better power down package
|
|
|
23 Nov 2005, 08:58 (Ref:1468102) | #4 | ||
Race Official
1% Club
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 47,193
|
I think power down had a lot to do with the speed of the HMS cars at Symmons Plains.
Its funny that the speed differential wasnt as pronounced at Bathurst... which does suggest a chassis tuning problem rather than an outright lack of grunt in Tassie. If Mr Booth wants to chuck a couple more million at SBRE, I am sure they can dig up more than a few horsepower.... the link with BJR will help the budget here.. and improve the speed of developments. |
||
__________________
Go woke, Go broke… Here’s hoping a random universe works out in your favour… The meaning of life… ENJOYING THE PASSAGE OF TIME! #CANCERSUCKS |
23 Nov 2005, 10:11 (Ref:1468161) | #5 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 917
|
Quote:
As i said everyone heard Lowndes comment on TV last meeting ! now its time to "rattle a few sabres" to avoid a one sided speed advantage - (which Holden will do all in its power to maintain.) Power down GTR?? i know..but when Lowndes lost Tander by 5 car lengths on the straight THATS A POWER ADVANTAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE COULD NOT RESPOND ! bring on the improved head-nothing has changed to the Falcon engine for years NOW its needed! The blue side should watch for speed differeential between the top cars (HRT,HSV,SBR AND 888) this weekend more closely that in the past. all that is needed for close racing for 06 is an equalisation of power output,easily acheived!!! |
|||
__________________
888 LOWNDES/WHINCUP 2006-2007-2008 BATHURST 1000 WINNERS !!!! Whincup 2008 champion !-the mighty team 888-now FG for 2009 champion ! 'those who choose to ignore history are are doomed to repeat it' |
23 Nov 2005, 10:30 (Ref:1468176) | #6 | |||
Race Official
1% Club
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 47,193
|
Quote:
If the HSVDT cars were so quick in a straight line, where were their deficiencies in order for them to be only a poofteenth quicker than the field... that kind of grunt should have ripped seconds off the laptimes.... |
|||
__________________
Go woke, Go broke… Here’s hoping a random universe works out in your favour… The meaning of life… ENJOYING THE PASSAGE OF TIME! #CANCERSUCKS |
23 Nov 2005, 10:52 (Ref:1468186) | #7 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,040
|
.2 to .3 seconds is bit more than a pooftenth though (based on fastest laps in each race at SP)
|
|
|
23 Nov 2005, 12:27 (Ref:1468256) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,940
|
Is there a difference in what the rules say you can put in a Holden engine compared with a Ford engine? I seem to remember some Ford fans gloating about what a dog the Aurora engine was, and how the Ford engine was so much better. Have the rules been changed, or have Holden just done what they usually do, and developed a superior product within the existing rules?
If there is no mandated difference between a Ford engine and a Holden engine, maybe SBR/Ford should do some more development? |
||
__________________
HSV - Sideways cars from an upside down country. |
23 Nov 2005, 12:49 (Ref:1468283) | #9 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,382
|
There was nothing wrong with the Aurora engine, from memory it was the first all new Holden V8 Supercar engine design in quite a number of years.
Ford on the other hand is still attempting to develop an engine that they have been developing for a considerable number of years (this is the impression i get anyway). The Aurora engine started a little powerless compared to the existing Ford unit, but due to being a completely new product, it has been able to be developed and tweeked to provide more horsepower (or maybe possibly torque) then the previous Holden unit, and the current Ford unit. It would appear that Ford would have to come up with a complete new engine in the Aurora vain, and start the development cycle again if they are going increase their power significantly over the next few years. |
|
__________________
... without motorsport, what is sport? |
23 Nov 2005, 14:52 (Ref:1468394) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,313
|
The Aurora (Chev) or Holden motorsport engine (as Holden prefer you to call it) was introduced to negate the perceived advantage the Ford motorsport engine with its "canted valve" heads had over the older Chev 18 degree heads.
The ford design does have an inherently better flow (CFM) and combustion chamber shape where as the older Chev engine with its siamese ports 18 degree head shrouded the valves much more which potentially restricted the flow in the upper rev range. As I understood it though the ford head design only gave an advantage at or above 7300 rpm, Holden lobbied that as the advantage was there even if it was only in the last 200 rpm they should be allowed the new block and head design. Of course its all swings and roundabouts as the older 18 degree engine had a much flatter torque curve then both the existing Ford and the newer Aurora engine. IMO without putting the 2 engines on the same dyno it would be just BS to think you could say 1 has an advantage over the other by watching at the track, even at Bathurst on Conrod this year the exit speed from Forests elbow decided the Vmax at the entry of the chase. A good example is the MotoGP guys where the Honda V5 is acknowledged with having more power than the Yamaha i4 yet ol Rossi is still with them (most times) at the end of the straight. Thats just down to better corner exit speed due to having a better setup. and thats my 2c |
||
__________________
Ignorance is the easy way out, and the easy way out is rarely the best. Fighting ignorance takes dedication, desire, and effort. |
23 Nov 2005, 20:39 (Ref:1468743) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 952
|
I find it hard to believe anyone could say there was a whole five car lengths difference in acceleration down the back straight! Five car lengths is like 25 metres, a massive distance.
I didn't see Rick Kelly pull Ambrose in by five car lengths down the back straight, nor did I see Lowndes get dropped off by that amount either. I think sometimes comments get taken far too seriously and people cling to anything that will help them deal with their car losing. If there was a power deficit then Bathurst would have shown it up big time, and it didn't. The fact that Lowndes and Ambrose were so fast points towards no lack of engine speed. Especially if you believe they are slower over the mountain, and thus must have more straight line speed to post lap times as fast. Or maybe they can brake a lot later????? James Courney was quoted as saying something like "the HRT and SBR cars have similar power but the SBR engine is much smoother to drive". Sounds like an informed comment to me rather than us sitting here trying to make subjective calls from things said with no technical information to back it up. |
||
__________________
Ego, is not a dirty word |
23 Nov 2005, 20:50 (Ref:1468749) | #12 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
This will all mean nothing when they go to the common cylinder heads!
|
|
24 Nov 2005, 02:17 (Ref:1468961) | #13 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,208
|
Quote:
I don't understand all of this cuffufle though. SBR have clearly had a power advantage for 2003 and 2004, by a country mile. All of a sudden someone perceives HMS to have more power and theres all this talk about it. Quote:
|
||||
|
24 Nov 2005, 02:54 (Ref:1468973) | #14 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 389
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FF1600 Engine Power | Redracer77 | Club Level Single Seaters | 72 | 29 Jun 2004 18:37 |
Engine power | pirenzo | Sportscar & GT Racing | 38 | 27 Jan 2003 18:04 |
Toyota's Engine Power | Mark F1 | Formula One | 27 | 19 Jan 2002 23:30 |
Changing engine POWER ? | renaultbel | Formula One | 1 | 21 Jul 2001 14:36 |
Engine Horse Power | BBKing | Formula One | 6 | 30 Jun 2001 01:37 |