rec.autos.simulators

by **Stephen Ferguso** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> > Actually, when one considers the stratospheric 16,000+ rpm of the F1
> > engines, and the similar peak horespower ratings between the two engine
> > types, I'd be surprised if the F1 engine torque values are higher than a
> > Nascar engine.

> > Stephen

> The torque may indeed be greater in the NASCAR than the F1 engine, but
> you have to remember that this is just the torque of the engine and not
> the torque on the wheels (which is what matters), as there is a gearbox
> in between. If you do a more thorough analysis you will see that, if you
> can have any gear ratio available to you (a continuously variable
> transmition or closely spaced gears), the maximum torque on the driven
> wheels depends only on the power of the engine and not its torque. A
> good spread of torque (or, more accurately, power, which is torque
> multiplied by the rotational velocity of the engine) over the RPM is
> important only in situations when you cannot change gears (as in exiting
> the corner) or they are widely spaced. In CVTs, maximum torque becomes
> completely irrelevant.

True, I neglected gearing, but the question was specifically about engines,
although the comment about accelerating out of corners raises the issue of
gearing. It took me a moment with a pen and a paper to convince myself of
your point, but of course it's true. Assuming adequate gearing is
available, the higher power engine wins out on torque at the drive wheels.
Learn something new every day (or in my case, I'm reminded of something old
that I learned ten years ago but have lost in the cobwebs of my mind! - too
much time studying biological systems instead of the nuts and bolts of my
engineering background).

Stephen

by **Brian P. Sween** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> Actually, when one considers the stratospheric 16,000+ rpm of the F1
> engines, and the similar peak horespower ratings between the two engine
> types, I'd be surprised if the F1 engine torque values are higher than a
> Nascar engine.

> Stephen

Perhaps, but I don't suppose the poster was merely comparing engines. Even
if a Cup engine generates more foot pounds of torque than an F1 engine,
given the mass of the two cars, the F1 car will *feel* as if it generates
far more torque than a Cup car.

Given that this discussion is presently concerning driver fitness, felt
torque seems to be more relevant than torque measured on a dyno. That is,
a lap around a road course in an F1 car will be more brutal than a lap
around the same course in a Cup car.

by **Matthew B.Knutse** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hmm, I wonder, if we put an old auto *** in an F1, hit the brakes, and
put it in "D" would the rear wheels creep a "burnout" ?
:-D Don't think so, an F1 engine is useless under...hmmm, 8000 RPM?

Yup, but in a totally different way. It is like comparing apples and
tomatoes IMO...
Put it this way (upsetting a few people);

Gang up a crowd of 10 NASCAR drivers against any 10 F1 drivers in a
fist-fight!

(pullin' yer legs a bit!)

Matt

by **David G Fishe** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers?

David G Fisher

by **Peter Olivol** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Having driven a race car, and played football and run 1/4 mile and rowed and
played basketball and racquetball and tennis and baseball and soccer and
hockey, I think it reasonable that I would be able to judge the level of
athletic effort required relative to each and while not in the league of
rowing, racing is north of baseball, football, soccer, tennis, racquetball,
and hockey and roughly equivalent to basketball. It requires more endurance
than the 440 but not the same momentary effort.

Endurance increases in importance with the distance of the race (doh!) but
is a factor in anything more than a about a 5 minute sprint. Drivers who
are in better shape, all else being equal, will begin to extend a lead or
overcome a deficit markedly toward the end of a race. I've tracked my own
lap times relative to physical condition thoughout a race and it's very
clear that I can turn faster, more consistent laps at the end of a race when
I'm in shape than when I'm not. That's no different than the criteria used
to judge physical conditioning in all of the sports mentioned.

Being out of physical shape also has significant negative impact on
sustained mental focus as the brain becomes starved for oxygen, and
maintaining focus for the entire distance, especially in closely contested
events, is not only better than loosing it, it may be the difference between
crashing and finishing. The amount of oxygen reaching the brain in athletes
is a function of aerobic conditioning.

The level of physical effort is not a road vs. oval issue. I've driven
both. With the exception of endurance sports car racing, an oval race of
equal distance to a road race produces about the same metabolic effect. I
would include one caveat; there is no way to escape the effort on an oval if
you expect to be allowed to participate. In road racing it's possible to
cruise around without extending much physical effort without drawing the
same level of official "attention."

How much racing have you done relative to other sports you've participated
in, Brian? How much of that was on ovals and how much on road courses?

by **Peter Olivol** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

You are flat wrong, Brian. F1 engines are not torque powered, they're rev
powered. There are very severe limits imposed on an engine's ability to
breath over a wide rev range. While F1 engines have extended that range
they haven't eliminated the limits entirely, and small displacement engines,
especially engines with smallish individual cylinder displacements, that are
capable of reving beyond 12,000 rpm don't produce high peak torque numbers.
The power comes from the equation ft/lbs of torque * rpm = hp. Assume about
800 horsepower and a power peak at 16,000 rpm and do the math compared that
same 800 hp at a power peak of 7500 rpm and it's quickly apparent that an F1
engine is torque starved by comparison.

by **Brian P. Sween** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

> Being out of physical shape also has significant negative impact on
> sustained mental focus as the brain becomes starved for oxygen, and
> maintaining focus for the entire distance, especially in closely contested
> events, is not only better than loosing it, it may be the difference between
> crashing and finishing. The amount of oxygen reaching the brain in athletes
> is a function of aerobic conditioning.

So running an O2 line inside the helmet negates the need for aerobic
conditioning?

Just curious, ya' know.

by **Peter Olivol** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

The amount of oxygen present is irrelevant. It's the ability of the body to
take it in, move it around and feed tissue. That's what aerobic
conditioning does, it improves the body's ability and efficiency to use
oxygen. It is possible to be oxygen starved in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen
if your body can't process it fast enough to keep up with your internal use.

by **Pat LaTorre** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

How many of them are consistant front runners?
Enjoy,
Pat LaTorres

by **David Schmid** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Yes Brain, but without the prerequisite knowledge of the subject matter at
hand, how is one able to recognize said error?
Smitty

> > Brian, you're the one who's missed a necessary step. You know nothing
about
> > what it takes physically to drive a race car in any form of the sport.

> > > Yes, but a librarian could train for the Ironman competition, but it
> > > doesn't make library work athletic. You've missed a necessary step.

> Thanks for the irrelevancy, Pete, but this is logic, and you know scant
> little about it, so I suggest you heed your own advice.

> I simply noted (much to your apparent bewilderment) the post hoc, propter
> hoc fallacy, and you don't have to know a damn thing about the subject in
> which the fallacy is employed to spot the error.

> Think of it this way. An error in programming code is still an error,
> regardless of whether the person reviewing the code knows anything about
> word processors, 3D games, or whatever the program might be.

> *********************************************************
> "You really should try racing some in your lifetime (and not on your
> computer ...). You would quickly discover how much easier a road
> course is than an oval."

> -Allan Pagan

by **David Schmid** » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Hey Speedy,
crawl in one of those sprint monsters and see if you feel the same way after
50 laps on a half mile dirt bullring. No cheatin' by sandbaggin' either,
push 'er to the limit. I'll guarantee it'll assuredly change your mindset.
Smitty

> >If you really think oval racing is just "put your foot to the floor and
turn
> >left" then you just proved your ignorance to me. The rest of the
statements

> But the fact still remains that road racing is signifcantly more
> difficult. I'd hire an British F3 racer over any USAC sprinter any
> day!

by **Davi** » Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:00:00

He is right, at 16,000 rpms the F 1 motor won'thave enough torque to pull
your hat off.

Dave

> You are flat wrong, Brian. F1 engines are not torque powered, they're
rev
> powered. There are very severe limits imposed on an engine's ability to
> breath over a wide rev range. While F1 engines have extended that range
> they haven't eliminated the limits entirely, and small displacement
engines,
> especially engines with smallish individual cylinder displacements, that
are
> capable of reving beyond 12,000 rpm don't produce high peak torque
numbers.
> The power comes from the equation ft/lbs of torque * rpm = hp. Assume
about
> 800 horsepower and a power peak at 16,000 rpm and do the math compared
that
> same 800 hp at a power peak of 7500 rpm and it's quickly apparent that an
F1
> engine is torque starved by comparison.

> > You were doing well until that last sentence. F1 engines generate gobs
of
> > torque. They have to to accelerate from an endless series of slow
corners.

by **Alan Orto** » Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Are you saying you don't have to be in great shape to be COMPETITIVE?
LOL!!
As you see the drivers that are not in good shape don't last long in
NASCAR or they stay at the back of the pack and f1 is the same way.
Many of the NASCAR drivers are tough nuts, don't let the wrinkles fool
you.
Right now I think Adam Petty is having trouble, not because he is fat
but rather because he is too light,skinny and weak and is getting pretty
beat up because of it.

> Then how do you explain all those chubby and/or wrinkled NASCAR drivers?

> David G Fisher

> > Both in F1, NASCAR and other forms of motorsport you have to be in great
> > condition to be competitive.

by **Alan Orto** » Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Your right the F1 car will produce more G's under acceleration which do
strain a driver but in a Cup car the driver will have to work hard to
prevent wheel spin when coming out of a corner which also puts a toll on
them mentally, which is another form of fitness.
I hope N4 will realistically show the power of Cup cars, N3 is terrible
for it.

by **Jan Verschuere** » Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Strike one... he's slipping. <g>

Jan.
----

> The amount of oxygen present is irrelevant. It's the ability of the body
to
> take it in, move it around and feed tissue. That's what aerobic
> conditioning does, it improves the body's ability and efficiency to use
> oxygen. It is possible to be oxygen starved in an atmosphere of 100%
oxygen
> if your body can't process it fast enough to keep up with your internal
use.

> > In article <mlgx4.2792>
> > So running an O2 line inside the helmet negates the need for aerobic
> > conditioning?

> > Just curious, ya' know.

rec.autos.simulators

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point

Oval racing, my point