Must be sad

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by BrownDoggie, Oct 29, 2002.

  1. Re: Must be sad

    Are you sure, I am almost positive that they run on methane, I will have to research this to find out for myself.
  2. Re: Must be sad


    I am sure you can get more than 940 out of a naturally aspirated engine. It just requires more money and less reliability.

    I'd give Enzo a dollar if he made a 7.7L engine that ran to 18000 RPM.
  3. Re: Must be sad

    budgy, methane is a gas for a start, the refuelling rigs pump LIQUID into the car, it is stored in the car in a rubber tank - you cant store compressed gas in one of those. Ferrari are sponsored by Shell, theyre an oil company, who sell gasoline.

    Why is there a guy at the pit stop with a plastic guard on a pole standing next to the refueller, stopping the petrol leaking onto the hot exhaust? cant be compressed gas can it?
  4. Re: Must be sad

    Then maybe its methanol. Wow who cares if Shell sponsors Ferrari. Doesn't mean a thing, cereal companys sponsor racing teams too, maybe they put cereal into the fuel tanks. Anyway I am being sarcastic, I am not a chemistry whiz, but I am almost positive they do not use gasoline. I remember reading about methanol fires or something like that and you cant see a methanol fire you just smell it or something, thats why when there is a crash in F1 and the car does not appear to be on fire the driver gets the hell out of there in a hurry.
  5. Re: Must be sad

    This is taken from how stuff works, its about champ cars but its the closest I can find.

    The Fuel
    Champ Cars burn methanol fuel. Methanol is a form of alcohol and has several advantages over gasoline in an engine:
    Methanol can run at much higher compression ratios, meaning that you can get more power from the engine on each piston stroke.
    Methanol provides significant cooling when it evaporates in the cylinder, helping to keep the high-revving, high-compression engine from overheating.
    Methanol, unlike gasoline, can be extinguished with water if there is a fire. This provides a nice safety feature.
    The ignition temperature for methanol (the temperature at which it starts burning) is much higher than it is for gasoline, so the risk of an accidental fire is lower.
    The only significant problem with methanol is that it burns with an invisible flame -- you cannot see a methanol fire. People don't know that they are near a methanol fire until they feel the heat. This includes the driver, who in a crash may have methanol spilled on his suit. The driver will therefore move flagrantly once he has detected a fire to let other people know that there is a problem.

    A Champ Car's fuel cell intake

    The car carries 35 gallons (142 liters) of fuel in a fuel cell located behind the driver. This cell is made of a flexible Kevlar and polymer material -- it is more like a bag than a tank. Inside the bag is a sponge-like substance that gives the bag its shape. The bag is designed to withstand a crash without rupturing -- rather than rupturing, it flexes and changes its shape. The idea behind the sponge is to hold the fuel so that, in a severe crash, it does not spray over the driver, other cars or the track.

    The engine burns methanol at a rate of approximately 2 miles per gallon, meaning that the car must make a pit stop for fuel approximately every 70 miles or so. During a pit stop, the fuel pours into the cell through a large filler mounted just behind the driver. Thirty-five gallons of fuel can flow into the cell in just a few seconds!

    CART rules allow each team to use fuel at a rate of up to 1.8 miles per gallon. That is all the fuel that the team gets, so each team must manage its fuel consumption to work within that limitation.
  6. Re: Must be sad

    well done, Champ Cars use methanol - i said that a couple of posts ago.

    F1 cars use gasoline, check out Jos Verstappens pitstop in the 1995 german grand prix (i think)...during the pitstop the whole car is engulfed in bright YELLOW flames. Like u said methanol burns clear so u wouldnt be able to see it.

    the comment about Shell was important because they make the fuel for ferrari, just as Magnetti Marelli make the spark plugs. There was a short documentary about Shell testing samples of fuel in a mobile lab behind the pits on the race weekend. Shell dont make methanol.
  7. Re: Must be sad

    Alright fair enough. Why dont they start using methanol in F1 cars? Seems you can get a lot more power using methanol for fuel.
  8. Re: Must be sad

    im not sure that theres any benefit in using methanol over gasoline. Gasoline has a higher calorific value than methanol, so the same amount will yield more power. The benefit in methanol is apparently the ability to use higher CRs, which increases the power, but only in relation to other methanol engines, not in relation to gasoline engines.

    You cant get more power out of an engine using a fuel with a lower calorific value, it isnt allowed by definition.

    hydrogen peroxide is a good fuel to use - it'll dissolve human flesh but damn does it make cars fly.
  9. Re: Must be sad

    I think its a fair trade off.
  10. Re: Must be sad

    I thought that alchohol itself is a very high colorific fuel. Is there any performance cars that just use alchohol?
  11. Re: Must be sad

    yes, CART cars do, methanol is a specific type of alcohol

    pro-stock dragsters use it aswell, i think

    1930s grand prix cars used it, with a bit of nitrobenzene and acetone thrown in for good measure
  12. Re: Must be sad

    If you drink enough of it you will go blind and then you will die.
  13. Re: Must be sad

    K, but look at some of the tuned Skylines, there is an R32 in Australia that has 1400 horsepower, im not sure about the torque figures on that, but I am sure it is a lot more than 300.
  14. Re: Must be sad

    im sure it is, ive seen 1000hp R33s with about 600lbft. Whats your point?
  15. Re: Must be sad

    I meant to put that reply in the I spit on your masterpiece topic, I was high as a kite last night.
  16. Re: Must be sad

    I know what that's like.
  17. #217 Guibo, Mar 11, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Must be sad

    Greetings again. Time to elaborate on some points.

    Quote from ch1c4n3:
    “all power claims from TVR are real. 420hp from a Cerbera is REAL, it just doesnt appear in production cars apparently. They DID get 420hp from some engine didnt they?...which means they DID get 940hp from SOME ENGINE”

    I think I’ve found out how TVR got those figures (and no doubt the power figures for the rest of their cars). See this:

    “The TVR quoted figure will be for a stripped engine (no ancillaries) run on a dyno so no transmission losses either (even so it is probably still optimistic).”

    “Remember that the 340bhp number quoted is a manufacturers comparison number measured by an engine dyno - not a rolling road. This will be a basic stripped engine with no ancilliaries etc...”

    “I know there have been a lot of threads on this already, but I had my Chim 450 on Motorvation Motorsport's rolling road this week, and I am getting a whopping 238 BHP at the flywheel.
    I know that is about what everyone else gets, but it just seems someone should put up a large banner in blackpool asking for the remaining 47 HP.”

    “No, TVR figures are quite correct, provided you remove all drivebelts, alternator, fan, sparkplugs, pistons, oil, stand with the wind coming over your left shoulder at 278 degrees from North, with one leg in the air, on a cold wet day, whilst whistling the song 'I've Got The Power' from the band called 'Snap!'
    This, I believe is how they achieve these mythical performance figures. Oh and by the way, you will be 47 BHP out if they tested the engine when there is an 'R' in the month!”

    This type of engine output rating was used in the States up until the early ‘70s. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. Known as gross hp, vs. the current practice exercised by nearly everyone in the industry, which yields net bhp. Gross figures were on average about 20-25% higher than net figures.
    But that’s not all. One has to consider the fact that since TVR tests their engines on a bench dyno (see pic below, left), transmission, driveshaft, and halfshaft frictional losses are not factored into the equation. For TVR vehicles, I’ve seen this range anywhere from 25% loss to 37% loss, depending on the model.
    Now, let’s take a look at the Cerbera Speed 12’s claimed figure of 940 horses. Using a low gross vs. net factor of 20% plus the low end of driveline losses (25%), that means there’s very likely a 45% (20 + 45) discrepancy between TVR’s gross power output and what the car would likely put out on a true rolling road dyno. That’s 648 RWHP. About the same as quite a few tuned Vipers out there (many of which have actually found a home in a customer’s garage, BTW).
    But forgetting the RWHP, let’s take it back to crank hp. With the ancillaries on (per industry norm), we’re looking at 783 bhp. Coincidentally, if you consider that the Cerbera 4.5 was only making 83% of its claimed hp output, the 940 hp figure for the Cerbera Speed 12 multiplied by 83% yields...782 bhp. Fun with numbers.

    In which case, the answer to your question:
    “Whatever the case, its still the most powerful NA engine ever made, isnt it?”
    would have to be no. The S2000 makes more.

    “as for Rosche, if he says 1200, 1300 then 1400 - u take 1400 coz otherwise he'd be a liar. U obviously take the highest one dont u? - feel free to scan an article with a direct quote from the man himself - not ‘Rosche said 1200’”

    OK. If you insist. (Below, right.)
  18. Re: Must be sad

    “Vipers are underrated…who's to say that guy's car wasnt a 1 off?”

    Three more dyno tests have been done on customer Vipers. See below. 487 lb/ft at the wheels means 550 lb/ft at the crank. 503 lb/ft at the wheels means 568 lb/ft at the crank. Another one came in just came yesterday:
    445.4 HP
    492.7 Torque
    That’s 503 bhp and 557 lb/ft at the crank. Maybe these 4 cars were just 1 offs? Wait, that doesn’t sound right…
    I think we can toss the Viper's claimed torque rating much the same we can with TVR's power ratings.

Share This Page