Nascar beats nhra to the punch... Part deux... (1 Viewer)

[Bill]

IN the original thread, I wote the following (in bold type, here), with the burning question being, my appeal for input, saying, "Now, will somebody who can come up with a logical, technically-correct reason why this is not a viable plan, please tell me what I have missed."

Nobody did...

Does that mean that this IS, in fact, a "no b.s.", workable plan for the much-talked-about-but-no-action, Pro Stock EFI changeover, or is everybody of the opinion that something THIS SIMPLE, simply could not work in the heady atmosphere of P/S racing, today???

If not, I'd still like to know why not.
Any comments or information wil be appreciated.




>>>"NHRA will have to have a way to "police" the use of EFI and it's controllers,so that no cheating happens.Once they figure a system,I think they will go EFI."

How about this: No changes to the engine EXCEPT, the (new) fuel delivery system cannot use a carburetor and cannot have a total air entry to the manifold, the size of which exceeds the combined throttle plate area of two (2) current, Pro Stock-legal, Holley Dominators. ONE air entry per cylinder bank (that would be half the total.) DUH....

The fuel injection electronics can be ANYTHING THEY CAN COME UP WITH...
Mixing gasoline and air in a ratio of approximately 11-to-1 is not exactly rocket science, if you have a wideband oxygen/fuel meter, so what kind of advantages deemed "unfair" would NHRA be trying to police?

Why would they care, how it gets done???

If someone can figure out a better mousetrap, let them run it! "Ingenuity in action" was Wally's credo for YEARS.... let 'em run what they can invent/figure out!

The restricted air intake will limit what the engine can produce... that's the only thing in the entire system that would need any "policing," at all, as I see it.

Traction control? As someone pointed out, they effectively have it now, with the infinitely adjustable clutch setups they already run, so why not make it less of a chore and do it electronically??? It is, after all, 2009; not 1956...

Now, will somebody who can come up with a logical, technically-correct reason why this is not a viable plan, please tell me what I have missed.

The electronic "policing" by NHRA of a fuel delivery system would seem to be both unnecessary and undesirable. Why would they CARE who ran what system??? This is, in fact, a competition, part of which is the ability to "one-up" the guy in the other lane, technologically, isn't it???

That's been the essence of "drag racing" more than any other motorsport, since day one, and a large part of drag racing's appeal... at least, for me...

Well, let's let 'em DO IT! Why make this any more complicated than it has to be???

Bill
Addendum: Might want to write a new hood scoop rule, and outlaw "direct injection" or pressures over, say, 100 psi. The should be plenty to spray 1,500 HP's worth of gasoline into a plenum or intake port. They're probably not going to make any more power than that, anyway, with that size (restricted) intake spec.

 

[Toby]

Here is how I see the NASCAR EFI deal. NASCAR is trying to keep the manufacturers involved. Its easy for NASCAR to tell them that EFI will be allowed X years from now. Just like NHRA did a few times. Until it really becomes part of the rules, its just hot air.

I am all for EFI, yet having worked with NHRA PS teams for the last ten years, its going to be hard to make the change. PS is really the only professional class that has had full fields this year. So what is really the incentive for NHRA to change the rules? GM isn't involved anymore. Dodge I think is about the same. Ford is just coming into the deal and Toyota is non-existent by current rules. So really you are left with Fords input. I am sure they would love to see EFI from a tech standpoint. Yet really will it make more people sit in the stands to watch the class? I really doubt.

Obviously you are a hard-core style of spectator, you are a dying breed. The win on sunday and sell on monday thought doesn't apply anymore. Auto consumers aren't driven by who won on sunday anymore. If you doubt that, go to a car dealership and poll people looking at cars to buy and ask them who won the last PS or NASCAR race. I bet you atleast 75% wouldn't have an idea. So really back to my point from Ford, maybe Dodge and GM...whats the point of spending more for what they already have as far as coverage? A good point is the ALMS. That is a pretty slick deal. I worked with the GM factory Corvette team at Sebring one year. Its high tech as hell. Yet who in the hell is watching the race at the track and for sure no one is watching it on TV. GM was finished with the ALMS a couple years ago.

The 'policing' of EFI would be rather easy. There is a circle track sanctioning body that required EFI in the late 90's. When each team pulled into the track they were literally handed an EFI unit. I am not sure if ASA is still running or not yet it worked at the time.

The rules would have to make the entire intake system a spec or it would be game on for the high budget teams. Bruce Allen told me a while ago his brother works for McLaren. They have people dedicated to just developing injectors and the budget was out of sight. Do you think a lower budget drag team would want to compete against a higher budget team with that in mind? I don't think so, they would stay home.

Traction control now as you say is happening in a passive tense. In essence it isn't in real time. When the car leaves the pits, practically the car is set. Yes shift point, a couple grams of counter weight and starting line RPM can be changed before the car is fired. Yet real traction control adjusts a car in real time, not before the car is fired.

This is a long reply so I will try to summize. Again I would love to have EFI legalized. With my background in electronics and experience with PS teams over ten years it would be good for me. Do I really think it would be good for the class now? Absolutely not. Changing the rules formula, no matter how it is worked will only cause more money to be spent. With this economic environment, thats the last thing that needs to happen.

 

[Bill]

Toby,

Thanks for that well-thought-out and near-comprehensive reply.

Good points, all...

I am not sure that a well-researched, expensively-designed system would be significantly faster than a cheaper, less complicated system, in view of the intake restriction, but maybe I'm dreaming.... It could boil down to intake manifolding design. I don't think that mixture control would pay that kind of dividends, within the scope of what could be accomplished on a rich/lean basis.... but then, there are atomization issues, I suppose.

At any rate, that was a great response, and I appreciate all the good ideas therein.

Thanks!

Bill

 

[Super Mod]

This discussion is about 20 years too late. I can tell you who the 16 PS qualifiers will be at Indy........and why ($$). A cash strapped sport with a future as bleak as nationalized healthcare. Didn't anyone notice....the economy?

 

[Bill]

You're probably right-on, Jack.

Not only that, but I am sure the opinions of the people who contribute to this forum are probably not going to be responsible for NHRA doing ANYTHING... pneumatic valve springs, fuel injected Pro Stocks, or (horror of horrors!!!) replacing those exploding, "destroy-it-in-one -run" Nitro motors with some 800-cubic-inch, Aluminum, Sonny Leonard 4-turbo Alcohol motors that hopefully, would last awhile longer and not explode so often. They don't make as much horsepower as the Fuel motors, so they'd likely not go quite as fast; might could get back to quarter-mile racing with them.

Anybody got a bridge for sale????

Bill

 

[Bill]

Toby Graham wrote: "Bruce Allen told me a while ago his brother works for McLaren. They have people dedicated to just developing injectors and the budget was out of sight. Do you think a lower budget drag team would want to compete against a higher budget team with that in mind? I don't think so, they would stay home."

I think that maybe we are talking apples and oranges, or maybe bananas, here for this reason:

McLaren race cars run long distances at high speeds, with a lot of heel-toe braking in corners that require part-throttle power application, and it has to be linear with the accelerator pedal, so the driver can feed just enough throttle to keep the car in the desired "groove" in corners.

THAT is where the difficulty in designing a road-race application fuel curve would come in, and it would be a difficult system to program.

To compare that scenario with a full throttle blast through the quarter-mile, an application of wide open throttle for 7 seconds, would seem imappropriate to me.

I don't think that calculating a fuel curve in an EFI system for a Pro Stock car would be a very demanding chore for a fuel systems engineer with a wideband A/F meter.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" of P/S would be minimal in this case.

Just my two cents....


Bill

 

[foamy]

Until folks can get past the "Traction Control Is EVIL" thing, P/S EFI will never happen. Thru Indycar, ALMS, and Formula One racing efforts, the Factories all engine management systems on the shelf that can do this.

 

[Toby]

Hell I wonder why so much money is spent on carburetors then? If you think that a PS team will just buy an off the shelf EFi system, including injectors and not R&D/modify any variable possible, you really have no idea how PS works.

Toby Graham wrote: "Bruce Allen told me a while ago his brother works for McLaren. They have people dedicated to just developing injectors and the budget was out of sight. Do you think a lower budget drag team would want to compete against a higher budget team with that in mind? I don't think so, they would stay home."

I think that maybe we are talking apples and oranges, or maybe bananas, here for this reason:

McLaren race cars run long distances at high speeds, with a lot of heel-toe braking in corners that require part-throttle power application, and it has to be linear with the accelerator pedal, so the driver can feed just enough throttle to keep the car in the desired "groove" in corners.

THAT is where the difficulty in designing a road-race application fuel curve would come in, and it would be a difficult system to program.

To compare that scenario with a full throttle blast through the quarter-mile, an application of wide open throttle for 7 seconds, would seem imappropriate to me.

I don't think that calculating a fuel curve in an EFI system for a Pro Stock car would be a very demanding chore for a fuel systems engineer with a wideband A/F meter.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" of P/S would be minimal in this case.

Just my two cents....


Bill

 

[Bill]

Hell I wonder why so much money is spent on carburetors then? If you think that a PS team will just buy an off the shelf EFi system, including injectors and not R&D/modify any variable possible, you really have no idea how PS works.

Maybe I don't... but that's not what I said. What I said was,'"I don't think that calculating a fuel curve in an EFI system for a Pro Stock car would be a very demanding chore for a fuel systems engineer with a wideband A/F meter." I didn't say they would use an off-the-shelf unit, and not tweak it to their particular engine's needs, but you can only do so much with the rich/lean metering, and what else can an injector do? It introduces the fuel into the airstream, right? Given my suggested 100 psi limit (see earlier post) and disallowing direct injection, beyond managing the A/F ratio, aiming the nozzles and optimizing nozzle configuration for atomization, just exactly what more can you do? I guess you could choose between continuous, batch-feed and timed injection, but they'd get that figured out before the unit ever went on the car, I'm sure.

I think, the bulk of the R & D work on these new systems would be in manifold design, and yes, THAT would take a monumental amount of work to optimize. But, while this part of the redesign was in flux, I think we might see a variety of teams floating to the top for awhile, until someone with a better mousetrap surfaced.

There are a lot of areas on a P/S car where "ultimate spending" will pay off for the mega-buck teams, but I don't think this is necessarily one of them.

But, what do I know; I'd think that after many, many years of working with two Holley Dominators atop these motors, they'd have that figured out, by now.... apparently not. Go figure...

Thanks for your comments, Toby; maybe I really don't understand P/S...

Bill

 

[Toby]

I have worked around PS since 1997 as a data acq engineer. I think I might have an idea about the class.

Maybe I don't... but that's not what I said. What I said was,'"I don't think that calculating a fuel curve in an EFI system for a Pro Stock car would be a very demanding chore for a fuel systems engineer with a wideband A/F meter." I didn't say they would use an off-the-shelf unit, and not tweak it to their particular engine's needs, but you can only do so much with the rich/lean metering, and what else can an injector do? It introduces the fuel into the airstream, right? Given my suggested 100 psi limit (see earlier post) and disallowing direct injection, beyond managing the A/F ratio, aiming the nozzles and optimizing nozzle configuration for atomization, just exactly what more can you do? I guess you could choose between continuous, batch-feed and timed injection, but they'd get that figured out before the unit ever went on the car, I'm sure.

I think, the bulk of the R & D work on these new systems would be in manifold design, and yes, THAT would take a monumental amount of work to optimize. But, while this part of the redesign was in flux, I think we might see a variety of teams floating to the top for awhile, until someone with a better mousetrap surfaced.

There are a lot of areas on a P/S car where "ultimate spending" will pay off for the mega-buck teams, but I don't think this is necessarily one of them.

But, what do I know; I'd think that after many, many years of working with two Holley Dominators atop these motors, they'd have that figured out, by now.... apparently not. Go figure...

Thanks for your comments, Toby; maybe I really don't understand P/S...

Bill

 

[Bill]

Toby said, " I think I might have an idea about the class."

That's interesting. That should give you insights regarding what could be done that we laymen aren't aware of.

Can you share some of this knowkedge, to give us some idea of exactly what a tuner might be looking at in the implimentation of an EFI system on a P/S car that's making the change to fuel injection, beyond what I have suggested (type of system as regards, constant-flow, batch-feed, or timed, and nozzle placement and design)?

I did say that manifold configuration and design would be an area of MUCH concern and experimentation, probably for a long time, but the "ideal" fuel curve might not take that much time and effort, armed with dyno time, wideband sensors, and eight thermocouples.

Or, am I dreaming???

YOU tell ME what the problems might be, beyond what I have outlined.

And, thanks for sharing any information; I'm learning ,here...

Bill

 

[Doug]

I did say that manifold configuration and design would be an area of MUCH concern and experimentation, probably for a long time, but the "ideal" fuel curve might not take that much time and effort, armed with dyno time, wideband sensors, and eight thermocouples.


Bill

“The ideal fuel curve”
What exactly is it?

Engines built by one shop will need a different fuel curve than those built by another. In today’s world of carburetors when we change how the fuel is broken up it will change what the A/F requirements will be. This will change with different blends of fuels (NHRA & IHRA currently mandate specific fuels) So just to say that the engine will need to be XX:1 A/F at XX,XXX RPM isn’t the only factor. You’d want to play with how you’re atomizing the fuel to get the most complete burn.

This goes back to the haves spending A LOT more money than the have nots. Go through all of your intake changes and design work, and then your injector placement, spray patterns, etc. Now go through a lot of SLOW pulls on the dyno to be able to really dial in each specific RPM (more wear and tear) Oh and now let’s do the whole thing over for every possible timing curve, and package you’re going to run. Then you're going to get into guys running active intakes, and doing a number of other things.

Personally I don’t see any advantage to switching at this time. First economically it wouldn’t make any sense. Second I think it would be a wash in fans. You’ll pick up some that like the new technology, and lose some that don’t. Not enough one way or the other to make much different. I don’t see it doing anything to the spectators in the stands one way or another. With the restructuring of the Big-3 I don’t think you’re going to see any emphasis on the win on Sunday sell on Monday philosophy since we as Americans don’t seem to care much about that at this point anyhow. I personally think we’ve become smarter than that. We may look at what wins if you’re looking to get into a racing series or something but a Corvette beating a Ferrari or Aston on the Race course doesn’t really affect what I want to buy. Then knowing that the Corvette program really doesn’t (didn’t) have much to do with GM anyhow so who really cares?

I’d also take everything NASCAR is saying with a grain of salt so to speak. There may be other reasons behind what is being said. A year or two ago they were testing point ignitions at their R&D center to see about eliminating ignition boxes to get rid of traction control.

 

[Toby]

Everytime you want to get on the 'change PS bandwagon' again, reread this post. It pretty much summizes how I feel about it too.

“The ideal fuel curve” What exactly is it?
Engines built by one shop will need a different fuel curve than those built by another. In today’s world of carburetors when we change how the fuel is broken up it will change what the A/F requirements will be. This will change with different blends of fuels (NHRA & IHRA currently mandate specific fuels) So just to say that the engine will need to be XX:1 A/F at XX,XXX RPM isn’t the only factor. You’d want to play with how you’re atomizing the fuel to get the most complete burn.

This goes back to the haves spending A LOT more money than the have nots. Go through all of your intake changes and design work, and then your injector placement, spray patterns, etc. Now go through a lot of SLOW pulls on the dyno to be able to really dial in each specific RPM (more wear and tear) Oh and now let’s do the whole thing over for every possible timing curve, and package you’re going to run. Then you're going to get into guys running active intakes, and doing a number of other things.

Personally I don’t see any advantage to switching at this time. First economically it wouldn’t make any sense. Second I think it would be a wash in fans. You’ll pick up some that like the new technology, and lose some that don’t. Not enough one way or the other to make much different. I don’t see it doing anything to the spectators in the stands one way or another. With the restructuring of the Big-3 I don’t think you’re going to see any emphasis on the win on Sunday sell on Monday philosophy since we as Americans don’t seem to care much about that at this point anyhow. I personally think we’ve become smarter than that. We may look at what wins if you’re looking to get into a racing series or something but a Corvette beating a Ferrari or Aston on the Race course doesn’t really affect what I want to buy. Then knowing that the Corvette program really doesn’t (didn’t) have much to do with GM anyhow so who really cares?

I’d also take everything NASCAR is saying with a grain of salt so to speak. There may be other reasons behind what is being said. A year or two ago they were testing point ignitions at their R&D center to see about eliminating ignition boxes to get rid of traction control.

 

[Bill]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Is the R & D on an EFI system that the "haves" can afford, any different from the same thing we have now, with carburetors? Looks pretty much like apples/apples to me; somebody recently posted an outrageous amount of money for one Holley Dominator sold by a P/S carb guru... $$$$$$$$$$$$

Point being that "speed costs money," etc... The "haves" will virtually ALWAYS run quicker/faster, no matter what system is in place.

I have no dog in this hunt; I just think it makes for interesting discussion. I would guess that eventually (nobody knows when), P/S WILL make the switch to EFI, if only to get rid of those obnoxious hood scoops that they use, now.

I fail to understand the knee-jerk reaction to traction control these sanctioning bodies seem to have. Can you imagine from a spectators point of view, what a much better "show" we'd have to watch if nobody ever went up in smoke? Those "runaway races" wherein one car hooks and literally runs away from the other car are no fun to watch; especially, compared with a close race, which MIGHT have occurred, without the tire smoke.

What is wrong with that line of thinking, and why can't NHRA and IHRA get behind traction control, for the benefit of the "show?"

I have no idea what their thinking could be on this.

Anybody have any ideas???

Bill

 

[Doug]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

Is the R & D on an EFI system that the "haves" can afford, any different from the same thing we have now, with carburetors? Looks pretty much like apples/apples to me; somebody recently posted an outrageous amount of money for one Holley Dominator sold by a P/S carb guru... $$$$$$$$$$$$

Point being that "speed costs money," etc... The "haves" will virtually ALWAYS run quicker/faster, no matter what system is in place.

I have no dog in this hunt; I just think it makes for interesting discussion. I would guess that eventually (nobody knows when), P/S WILL make the switch to EFI, if only to get rid of those obnoxious hood scoops that they use, now.

I fail to understand the knee-jerk reaction to traction control these sanctioning bodies seem to have. Can you imagine from a spectators point of view, what a much better "show" we'd have to watch if nobody ever went up in smoke? Those "runaway races" wherein one car hooks and literally runs away from the other car are no fun to watch; especially, compared with a close race, which MIGHT have occurred, without the tire smoke.

What is wrong with that line of thinking, and why can't NHRA and IHRA get behind traction control, for the benefit of the "show?"

I have no idea what their thinking could be on this.

Anybody have any ideas???

Bill

All of the current intake manifold designs are engineered as “Wet” fuel and air intake systems. So there everyone would have to change over depending on where they wanted to place the injectors. Then you have questions on active intakes and other things. If you go to an IR system I would assume the majority of the cylinder heads would need to be scrapped to get the proper port volume without a common plenum.

As far as the cost of current P/S carburetors they’re actually less expensive today than what they were just a few years ago.

Getting rid of the “Obnoxious” Hood Scoops would kill the class for me regardless of what’s under it. The whole goal as a kid was to build a car that needed a hood scoop. Personally I think the flat hoods or 6” cowls look terrible. But to each his own, I’d just bet you’d lose as many fans as you gain with that.

When NHRA P/S right now is continually the closest racing on the planet in any sanctioning body (even in the current economic climate) I don’t see where you’re going to get better racing in that class with traction control. The only thing you do is wind up with the battle of traction control or actually the battle of launch control as Formula 1 went through for years where the racing was decided by who’s engineering team had the best launch system not the best racing.