-
[QUOTE=hightower99]He would probably look at the R10 engine and say "just a V10 diesel like I haven't seen that before!"[/QUOTE]
Would I really?
I'm glad you cleared that up for me, because I have not been sure of what I would say until now.
When I was there, staring down the smoking exhausts of an R10 as they warmed up the engine, I was standing there, transfixed by the horrific realisation that I didn't know what I would say, should anyone ask me for an opinion.
[QUOTE=hightower99]Just so you know the IF L1306 TS is a marine diesel engine. You suggested a pair of them for this car.[/QUOTE]
No; I don't think I saw that post.
Who suggested marine diesels? :confused:
They must be pretty stupid!
To look outside the automotive industry for inspiration.
Who would do something silly like that.
To look at new ideas.
Why would you look for an alternative if you didn't know anything about it?
[QUOTE=hightower99]What? If you want a rotary then it is because you think that it will be a better solution right? If you think that then it might be a good idea to do just alittle research about it to find out before posting that you want a rotary solution. Is that too much to ask?[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with you, the supposed engine expert, telling me why a rotary is not as good as a reciprocating engine?
Is that too much to ask?
Apparently; yes.
[QUOTE=hightower99]I can't pull ideas out of thin air[/QUOTE]
Where, then, do you pull your ideas from?
Rather left yourself open to that one.
[QUOTE=hightower99]I have tried to narrow down the selection from every possible configuration down to the 4 that are most prudent. [/QUOTE]
Why are they the "most prudent?"
Do you have an explanation, aside from that you want use some technology you think is "cool"?
[QUOTE=hightower99]I am not asking for you to be an expert I am asking you to be mature about this.[/QUOTE]
Boxer/ 180° V arrangements offer better centre of gravity that your presupposed V/W arrangement.
Therefore, the engine should be a boxer/ 180° V.
Discuss...
-
[QUOTE=jediali;667588]On behalf of the engine people can [B]we[/B] continue to invite [B]everyones[/B] opinion and not perpetuate post picking. [B]we[/B] didnt really want to post on this but [B]we[/B] havent really started anything and [B]we[/B] wont until [B]we[/B] decide on something final, [B]we[/B] are [B]all[/B] still in discussion:)
edit: [B]T[/B]ogether [B]E[/B]veryone [B]A[/B]chieves [B]M[/B]ore[/QUOTE]
On behalf of, well, me.
"You" alluded to some particular technology that benefits petrol burning engines.
Seeing as "you" doesn't want to sink to my level and discuss anything until I become an engine expert, why don't [B]you[/B], the engine team, explain what that technology is, and why it is better than anything else available so that everyone can see that it is actually a good idea, instead of "you" presuming that everyone will agree by default because they are "too stupid to know better"?
-
[QUOTE=henk4;667581]why are our ideas qualified as "little"? What are you trying to imply? That you are the master engine designer of UCP for whom all people should fall on their knees immediately and stumble in full admiration "Give us your thoughts oh Lord and Master"?
I think Coventry also referred to your arrogance, but it seemed to be completely lost on you.[/QUOTE]
Actually I didn't mean anything other than the ideas posted so far have been little as in not very detailed and obviously not much thought has been put into them (ie. use a TT V8 like Leno, put marine diesels in it ect)
There was at some point the begining of a NAvsFI discussion and some points about the VvsW discussion but any discussion has seemed to gotten lost. :(
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]Would I really?
I'm glad you cleared that up for me, because I have not been sure of what I would say until now.
When I was there, staring down the smoking exhausts of an R10 as they warmed up the engine, I was standing there, transfixed by the horrific realisation that I didn't know what I would say, should anyone ask me for an opinion.[/QUOTE] according to what you posted earlier yes something along those lines... :)
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]No; I don't think I saw that post.
Who suggested marine diesels?
They must be pretty stupid!
To look outside the automotive industry for inspiration.
Who would do something silly like that.
To look at new ideas.
[/QUOTE]
Marine diesels are optimised for... You guessed it! Marine use. Yes certain technologies could be changed to work in an automotive sector but not the whole engine.
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]What is wrong with you, the supposed engine expert, telling me why a rotary is not as good as a reciprocating engine?
Is that too much to ask?
Apparently; yes.[/QUOTE]
Rotary motion is better than reciprocating motion. But it isn't that simple as that it is highly dependant on the actual engine and since the only tested rotary engine is the Wankel then I have to say that for the purpose of powering a GT that isn't made by Mazda that it would be problematic at best to try that. Happy?
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]Where, then, do you pull your ideas from?
Rather left yourself open to that one.[/QUOTE]
I tend to be a follower of the "See a need, Fill a need" concept. I find a problem, figure out the absolute optimum solution then try to achieve that with something that can exist in the real world.
Simple concept really.
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]Why are they the "most prudent?"
Do you have an explanation, aside from that you want use some technology you think is "cool"?[/QUOTE]
OK fine an engine has to be either NA or FI so obviously the choice is one or the other. Next to configuration the engine needs to be compact enough not to impinge on luggage and passenger space. The configurations that come to mind are Flat, Inline, VR, V, W. There are others but these are the most used for many good reasons. Now since we are looking at a relatively large engine (has to be able to cruise and bruise in a heavy car) and since it has to have good responce over a wide operating range then we need to have more rather than less cylinders. For a flat configuration we could build up to about 5L into a flat 6, but even then you would really want to go to flat 8. The main problem with flat engines is packaging they take up too much space on the floor area. On to the Inline. For balance reasons you want to have 6 cylinders and packaging is a real problem with 8 (not to mention crankshaft strain) with 6 cylinders you could again get almost 5L out of it but even then the pistons are too big. Inline engine is just too long. VR is next with that you want either 6 for blance or you could take 8 as it isn't too long. displacement is again limited to about 5L. VR engines tend to be tall because to achieve good stroke length they need relatively long con-rods. Long con-rods tend to hurt low rpm breathing. a VR engine would require a more complicated version of my system for VC. VR is a possible but is pushed out by two formats. The V and W configurations. Both are compact with the W being more so than the V. However with the W you have to contend with a taller engine, thinner con-rods and cooling difficulty. V configuration would seem to be best as it is compact with the ability to have displacements up to 7L. V configuration allows me to design a simpler VC system.
I voted FI because it allows greater efficiency and allows a smaller physical engine.
I voted W because it would be alittle different and more challenging than a V.
Is that good enough for you?
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]Boxer/ 180° V arrangements offer better centre of gravity that your presupposed V/W arrangement.
Therefore, the engine should be a boxer/ 180° V.
Discuss...[/QUOTE]
Actually in practice the difference isn't enough to off set the compactness of the V and W engines.
in a boxer engine of 5L with only 6 cylinders it would be pretty tall (we want to maintain roughly square bore:stroke) it would be something like 103mm bore, 100mm stroke that means the flat 6 is roughly 150-180mm tall on it's own. A 6L V12 has the majority of its weight (crankshaft, crankcase) slightly lower than the flat engine and the cylinders don't reach that much higher. The V12 is better balanced as well as having an extra 1L of displacement.
-
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;667595]On behalf of, well, me.
"You" alluded to some particular technology that benefits petrol burning engines.
Seeing as "you" doesn't want to sink to my level and discuss anything until I become an engine expert, why don't [B]you[/B], the engine team, explain what that technology is, and why it is better than anything else available so that everyone can see that it is actually a good idea, instead of "you" presuming that everyone will agree by default because they are "too stupid to know better"?[/QUOTE]
We have described it
The VC systems I am designing for one and making the engine run Direct injection Compression Ignition for two.
-
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;667595]On behalf of, well, me.
"You" alluded to some particular technology that benefits petrol burning engines.
Seeing as "you" doesn't want to sink to my level and discuss anything until I become an engine expert, why don't [B]you[/B], the engine team, explain what that technology is, and why it is better than anything else available so that everyone can see that it is actually a good idea, instead of "you" presuming that everyone will agree by default because they are "too stupid to know better"?[/QUOTE]
I never aimed to upset you. I never insisted on petrol. I agreed that technology such as direct petrol injection (google it) would present the benefits of diesel. I quit this project because the communication sucks!
-
[QUOTE=hightower99;]Marine diesels are optimised for... You guessed it! Marine use. [/QUOTE]
What?!?!?
Never?!??
And you say putting two tonnes of engines in a car is impractical??!?!?!?
Thank you for pointing that out, otherwise I'd never have reached those conclusions!
[QUOTE=hightower99]Is that good enough for you?[/QUOTE]
Yes. That's all you needed to say, rather than all this nonsense about me having to prove to you why something else is better, without having the depth of knowledge to fully understand the implications of one design over another.
[QUOTE=jediali]I never aimed to upset you. I never insisted on petrol. I agreed that technology such as direct petrol injection (google it) would present the benefits of diesel. I quit this project because the communication sucks![/QUOTE]
You haven't upset me, I did not make it clear enough that I was talking about an individual "you" who seems to prefer an antagonistic approach to discussion, and the collective [b]you[/b] of the engine team, I apologise.
I think the lack of communication/ leadership provided by this medium is precisely the reason that the first UCP supercar projects died so quickly.
-
[QUOTE=Matra et Alpine;667523]yeah but really only MID_engine after a head on with a road train :D[/QUOTE]
The ESP will save it:D Rare to have a 50/50 weighted front mounted engine car:)
-
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;667605]What?!?!?
Never?!??
And you say putting two tonnes of engines in a car is impractical??!?!?!?
Thank you for pointing that out, otherwise I'd never have reached those conclusions![/QUOTE]
Then tell me, if you knew that we couldn't use the technology or the engine its self then why? Why would you even take the time to find the picture and stats and post it here?
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]Yes. That's all you needed to say, rather than all this nonsense about me having to prove to you why something else is better, without having the depth of knowledge to fully understand the implications of one design over another.[/QUOTE]
Well thats a relief. I didn't ask you to prove anything to me, just that you know enough to at the very least interest the engine department with your ideas. Don't just come up with random ideas that isn't helping anyone.
-
How about each one of us gives an engine ideia, possible or not and them, after a good list we can discuss it, not wanting to intrude in the "engine department" obviusly, just bring some order to this, and clearing ideias.
-
[QUOTE=hightower99;667738]Then tell me, if you knew that we couldn't use the technology or the engine its self then why? Why would you even take the time to find the picture and stats and post it here?[/QUOTE]
I'm telling you why:
Santa Clause is coming to town!
I doesn't take time to "find" something that is already in front of you. ;)
-
[QUOTE=ruim20;667778]How about each one of us gives an engine ideia, possible or not and them, after a good list we can discuss it, not wanting to intrude in the "engine department" obviusly, just bring some order to this, and clearing ideias.[/QUOTE]
How about me and whoever else wants to join the engine department (we are a man short now)
Actually make an engine department and get to work designing the actual.. you know... engine.
-
[QUOTE=jediali;667600]I never aimed to upset you. I never insisted on petrol. I agreed that technology such as direct petrol injection (google it) would present the benefits of diesel. I quit this project because the communication sucks![/QUOTE]
the communication in this thread or within the UCP engine design unit?
-
[QUOTE=henk4;667812]the communication in this thread or within the UCP engine design unit?[/QUOTE]
i dont think the method of communication is bad. the forums are adequate. I feel there is too much criticism *(sarcasim etc) in the place of constuctive criticism for this thread. I think ht99 on the whole is guiding it fine, regardless of little pick points (which someone will probably quote in the next post perpetuating *), i think he leaves enough room for others involvement. All due respect to those involved. hope this still goes well.
-
[quote=SlickHolden;667687]Rare to have a 50/50 weighted front mounted engine car:)[/quote]
This one seems to manage :D
[IMG]http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=228490&d=1169917100[/IMG]
-
[quote=hightower99;667597] A 6L V12 has the majority of its weight (crankshaft, crankcase) slightly lower than the flat engine and the cylinders don't reach that much higher. The V12 is better balanced as well as having an extra 1L of displacement.[/quote]
Care to explain why ?
What crank shapre and firing order are you presuming ?
All else equal why has
\_/ got more weight located lower than --- ?