NASCAR WC horsepower question ???

I don't work for a team or anything like that, I am just a curious fan and a car nut. If there is anyone lurking around with inside information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there is no way it could be rear wheel HP). Incidentally, I don't think this is modeled correctly in N2002. I think N2002 is down on HP compared to the real life cars. Anyway back to the point. 1. how much torque are these 800 HP engines making? at what RPM? 2. At what RPM are they making 800 HP, 9000? more? 3. What kind of rear wheel numbers (torque and HP) are they making on a dynojet?

"Curious George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I don't work for a team or anything like that, I am just a curious fan > and a car nut. If there is anyone lurking around with inside > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there > is no way it could be rear wheel HP). Incidentally, I don't think this > is modeled correctly in N2002. I think N2002 is down on HP compared to > the real life cars. Anyway back to the point. > > 1. how much torque are these 800 HP engines making? at what RPM? > > 2. At what RPM are they making 800 HP, 9000? more? > > 3. What kind of rear wheel numbers (torque and HP) are they making on a > dynojet? >

4. Why does your friend always wear only yellow ? <G> -John

For the most part, I believe they peak torque and HP somewhere in the 8500rpm range, some teams run higher rpms than others(Rousch certainly seems to). When N2002 was modelled they based it on expected power for the 2002 season, this will change(almost always go up throughout the season) as the engine guys find more HP and balance fuel economy, Torque numbers are probably typical from what you would see for a top notch 300-350cube V8, somewhere in the 500 lb-ft range. This is just speculation on my part but probably pretty close based on my limited inside info that I'm willing to comment on. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Curious George <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I don't work for a team or anything like that, I am just a curious fan > and a car nut. If there is anyone lurking around with inside > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there > is no way it could be rear wheel HP). Incidentally, I don't think this > is modeled correctly in N2002. I think N2002 is down on HP compared to > the real life cars. Anyway back to the point. > > 1. how much torque are these 800 HP engines making? at what RPM? > > 2. At what RPM are they making 800 HP, 9000? more? > > 3. What kind of rear wheel numbers (torque and HP) are they making on a > dynojet? >

> > > > 4. Why does your friend always wear only yellow ? <G> > > -John what do you mean

"drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:X_DI8.46431$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > > 4. Why does your friend always wear only yellow ? <G> > > > > -John > > what do you mean > > > Curious George..........kids book..........had to be there I guess :)

-John

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:X_DI8.46431$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > 4. Why does your friend always wear only yellow ? <G> > > > > > > -John > > > > what do you mean > > > > > > Curious George..........kids book..........had to be there I guess :) > > -John

oh i see i read that book

This gives some specific numbers but it should be noted that this is from 1988. http://www.stahlheaders.com/JpgFiles/issue7.pdf "Curious George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I don't work for a team or anything like that, I am just a curious fan > and a car nut. If there is anyone lurking around with inside > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there > is no way it could be rear wheel HP). Incidentally, I don't think this > is modeled correctly in N2002. I think N2002 is down on HP compared to > the real life cars. Anyway back to the point. > > 1. how much torque are these 800 HP engines making? at what RPM? > > 2. At what RPM are they making 800 HP, 9000? more? > > 3. What kind of rear wheel numbers (torque and HP) are they making on a > dynojet? >

In article <[email hidden]>, Curious George <[email hidden]> writes: > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there Do they really make this much? I always thought it was more like 600 or so. If they really make 800, why are they so slow? When the ALMS went to Texas in 2001, not only did they come off the banking to use the infield road course (meaning they couldn't sustain their high speeds all the way around the oval, keeping speeds down on the oval part), but they also put a chicane on the backstretch, to make them slow down again. Even so the LMP cars went over 180mph, which, AFAIK, is about as fast as the NASCAR guys ever go. For another comparison, look at Sears Point, 2001: ALMS: FASTEST QUALIFIERS: LMP900: # 1 Rinaldo Capello 1:21.745 110.979 mph LMP675: #57 John Graham 1:31.271 99.396 mph REC GTS: #26 Terry Borcheller 1:30.924 99.776 mph GT: #43 Dirk M�ller 1:33.763 96.755 mph REC FASTEST LAP: LMP900: # 1 Frank Biela Lap # 32 1:23.000 109.301 mph LMP675: #57 Didier de Radigues Lap # 89 1:29.389 101.489 mph REC GTS: #26 Terry Borcheller Lap # 2 1:32.127 98.473 mph REC GT: #10 Bill Auberlen Lap # 4 1:34.614 95.884 mph REC NASCAR Winston Cup: Pole: Jeff Gordon #24 Chevrolet 1:36.82* 93.699 mph * I calculated this assuming NASCAR uses the same 2.52 mile circuit as the ALMS. Time was only given in mph on the page where I found it. This means that NASCAR's overall pole time was slower than the best *race* lap (which in turn is slower than qualifying) done in GT, the slowest of the ALMS' four categories. The cars in GT only have something like 450hp, IIRC. Yes, they're lighter, but geez, with nearly double the horsepower, shouldn't the NASCAR cars have done a little better? I guess I'm dubious about that 800hp number... Marc

ALMS cars are making almost that much power as well (pretty much any top-level racing series, with the possible exceptions of rally racing and definite exception of drag racing, makes around 800hp from whatever formula; 3.0L V10s in F1, 2.65L turbo V8s in CART, 3.5L V8s in IRL, 5.7L V8s in NASCAR and WoO...), and they're a whole lot more aerodynamic to boot. And for the love of god, the last thing a NASCAR can do is run a roadcourse well. They're 3500lb pigs compared to a GT car; they've only got four gears to play with and a live rear axle, as opposed to the GT cars running sequential six-speeds, far less weight, and independent rear suspensions. Milhouse "Marc Fraioli" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ad0oc6$ia1$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > Curious George <[email hidden]> writes: > > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there > > Do they really make this much? I always thought it was more like 600 > or so. If they really make 800, why are they so slow? When the ALMS > went to Texas in 2001, not only did they come off the banking to use the > infield road course (meaning they couldn't sustain their high speeds all > the way around the oval, keeping speeds down on the oval part), but they > also put a chicane on the backstretch, to make them slow down again. Even > so the LMP cars went over 180mph, which, AFAIK, is about as fast as the > NASCAR guys ever go. > > For another comparison, look at Sears Point, 2001: > > ALMS: > > FASTEST QUALIFIERS: > LMP900: # 1 Rinaldo Capello 1:21.745 110.979 mph > LMP675: #57 John Graham 1:31.271 99.396 mph REC > GTS: #26 Terry Borcheller 1:30.924 99.776 mph > GT: #43 Dirk M�ller 1:33.763 96.755 mph REC > > FASTEST LAP: > LMP900: # 1 Frank Biela Lap # 32 1:23.000 109.301

mph > LMP675: #57 Didier de Radigues Lap # 89 1:29.389 101.489mph REC > GTS: #26 Terry Borcheller Lap # 2 1:32.127 98.473mph REC > GT: #10 Bill Auberlen Lap # 4 1:34.614 95.884mph REC

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > NASCAR Winston Cup: > > Pole: > > Jeff Gordon #24 Chevrolet 1:36.82* 93.699 mph > > * I calculated this assuming NASCAR uses the same 2.52 mile circuit as > the ALMS. Time was only given in mph on the page where I found it. > > This means that NASCAR's overall pole time was slower than the best *race* > lap (which in turn is slower than qualifying) done in GT, the slowest > of the ALMS' four categories. The cars in GT only have something like > 450hp, IIRC. Yes, they're lighter, but geez, with nearly double the > horsepower, shouldn't the NASCAR cars have done a little better? > > I guess I'm dubious about that 800hp number... > > Marc

"Marc Fraioli" wrote... > Do they really make this much? I always thought it was > more like 600 or so. If they really make 800, why are > they so slow? How much does a Le Mans Prototype weigh? -Slightly less than half of what a stock car weighs is my guess (stock car = 3000lbs). Pushing double the weight (and a greater frontal area) with the same horsepower is bound to be slower, even if there's nothing much in the track to impede your ultimate top speed. Jan. =---

Even at 700-800 HP for the WC cups, their power to weight ratio is still a fraction of what you get with most forms of road racing cars. Power to weight ratio as well as cornering capability is waht makes the road racing cars so much faster. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Marc Fraioli <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ad0oc6$ia1$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, > Curious George <[email hidden]> writes: > > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there > > Do they really make this much? I always thought it was more like 600 > or so. If they really make 800, why are they so slow? When the ALMS > went to Texas in 2001, not only did they come off the banking to use the > infield road course (meaning they couldn't sustain their high speeds all > the way around the oval, keeping speeds down on the oval part), but they > also put a chicane on the backstretch, to make them slow down again. Even > so the LMP cars went over 180mph, which, AFAIK, is about as fast as the > NASCAR guys ever go. > > For another comparison, look at Sears Point, 2001: > > ALMS: > > FASTEST QUALIFIERS: > LMP900: # 1 Rinaldo Capello 1:21.745 110.979 mph > LMP675: #57 John Graham 1:31.271 99.396 mph REC > GTS: #26 Terry Borcheller 1:30.924 99.776 mph > GT: #43 Dirk M�ller 1:33.763 96.755 mph REC > > FASTEST LAP: > LMP900: # 1 Frank Biela Lap # 32 1:23.000 109.301 mph > LMP675: #57 Didier de Radigues Lap # 89 1:29.389 101.489 mph REC > GTS: #26 Terry Borcheller Lap # 2 1:32.127 98.473 mph REC > GT: #10 Bill Auberlen Lap # 4 1:34.614 95.884 mph REC > > NASCAR Winston Cup: > > Pole: > > Jeff Gordon #24 Chevrolet 1:36.82* 93.699 mph > > * I calculated this assuming NASCAR uses the same 2.52 mile circuit as > the ALMS. Time was only given in mph on the page where I found it. > > This means that NASCAR's overall pole time was slower than the best *race* > lap (which in turn is slower than qualifying) done in GT, the slowest > of the ALMS' four categories. The cars in GT only have something like > 450hp, IIRC. Yes, they're lighter, but geez, with nearly double the > horsepower, shouldn't the NASCAR cars have done a little better? > > I guess I'm dubious about that 800hp number... > > Marc

Let's see.... LMP900 minumum weigth = 900 kg. LMP675 minumum weigth = 675 kg. NASCAR minumum weigth = *1600* kg. 2001 LMP900 Audi R8 (911kg.*): 3.6L Twinturbo V8: Estimated output 610+ hp and 516 lb-ft. of torque. 2001 MG Lola EX257 (690kg.*): 2.0L 4cyl inline tubocharded engine: Estimated output 450+ bhp. 2001 Winston Cup Car - 5.7L Cast-iron / push-rod engine with 1 single 4 barrel carb: Estimated output 750+bhp and 505+ft/lb of torque... Add to the fact that the LMP's have wider tires, lower CoG, more downforce and most important of all... 6 speed sequential 'boxes - compared to WC's 4 speed H-pattern.... As for GTS.... The Chevrolet Corvette is much more powerfull then you think... they use a 5.7l. pushrod engine too - only they got a block made of aluminium and multipoint fuel injection.. :-) According to GM's site that engine deliver around 620+bhp and 495+lb/ft. of torque.... Add to the fact that the GTS also almost 900lbs / 500kg. lighter that the WC-cars tipping the scales at 2510 lbs / 1138 kg. Once again, the GTS got the option of using more gears (6) / closer ratios wilch is good for accelleration. Just look at your own figures; LMP 900 vs. GTS - almost identical power outputs, yet the LMP900's miles faster due to less weight and more downforce. As the saying goes.... 'power is nothing without control'! -- ed_

Let's see.... LMP900 minumum weigth = 900 kg. LMP675 minumum weigth = 675 kg. NASCAR minumum weigth = *1600* kg. 2001 LMP900 Audi R8 (911kg.*): 3.6L Twinturbo V8: Estimated output 610+ hp and 516 lb-ft. of torque. 2001 MG Lola EX257 (690kg.*): 2.0L 4cyl inline tubocharded engine: Estimated output 450+ bhp. 2001 Winston Cup Car - 5.7L Cast-iron / push-rod engine with 1 single 4 barrel carb: Estimated output 750+bhp and 505+ft/lb of torque... Add to the fact that the LMP's have wider tires, lower CoG, more downforce and most important of all... 6 speed sequential 'boxes - compared to WC's 4 speed H-pattern.... As for GTS.... The Chevrolet Corvette is much more powerfull then you think... they use a 5.7l. pushrod engine too - only they got a block made of aluminium and multipoint fuel injection.. :-) According to GM's site that engine deliver around 620+bhp and 495+lb/ft. of torque.... Add to the fact that the GTS also almost 900lbs / 500kg. lighter that the WC-cars tipping the scales at 2510 lbs / 1138 kg. Once again, the GTS got the option of using more gears (6) / closer ratios wilch is good for accelleration. Just look at your own figures; LMP 900 vs. GTS - almost identical power outputs, yet the LMP900's miles faster due to less weight and more downforce. As the saying goes.... 'power is nothing without control'! -- ed_

"Ed Solheim" > As the saying goes.... 'power is nothing without control'! > -- > ed_ you can say that again. lol dave henrie

"Ed Solheim" you can say that again. lol dave henrie

Isn't this a bit of "discussing the obvious"....?? Kind of like, "Why are orange oranges....orange?" Duh? Isn't it a little "OT" as well? How does this relate to sim racing? Where's Ed and the "OT Police".....??? Oh my God......Ed participated in an OT string! Now I've seen everything.....lol.... TP "Curious George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I don't work for a team or anything like that, I am just a curious fan > and a car nut. If there is anyone lurking around with inside > information, here are a few questions for you. DW said recently on a TV > broadcast (either at the Winston or the 600) that he was hearing numbers > over 800 HP. I am assuming this is crank HP and not rear wheel HP (there > is no way it could be rear wheel HP). Incidentally, I don't think this > is modeled correctly in N2002. I think N2002 is down on HP compared to > the real life cars. Anyway back to the point. > > 1. how much torque are these 800 HP engines making? at what RPM? > > 2. At what RPM are they making 800 HP, 9000? more? > > 3. What kind of rear wheel numbers (torque and HP) are they making on a > dynojet? >

'You still here?? -- ed_ "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:R4CJ8.75962$cQ3.2275@sccrnsc01... > Isn't this a bit of "discussing the obvious"....?? Kind of like, "Why are > orange oranges....orange?" Duh? Isn't it a little "OT" as well? How does > this relate to sim racing? Where's Ed and the "OT Police".....??? > > Oh my God......Ed participated in an OT string! Now I've seen > everything.....lol....