Power versus runtime
11-20-2009, 04:36 AM
#1
Power versus runtime
Hypothetical scenario....medium sized track with super high bite and must wind out first gear to optimize laptime
High output 9 port engine (non tuned say 35 plus with 2052) running on 25% fuel provides fast lap time however regardless of tuning unable to make runtime for 5 minutes and must pit in qualy
Only way to make time is to detune engine with (35 plus with 2015) pipe and running 16% fuel. Laps times drop about .2-.3 sec but now able to make 5 minutes. This setup is marginal as motor has to be run on the limit to make time and finding that slightly higher elevation along with low nitro and borderline lean leads to short bearing and engine life.
7 port engine (R1wcs 2052) with power pipe able to make run time on 25% fuel but yields slower lap time at slightly less as detuned 9 port engine. Motor seems to lack top end on straight and short chutes but has good performance off corner.
In this hypothetical scenario would a modified/tuned 7 port engine be worth investing in a compromise between between both scenarios listed above.
I am trying to get some addtl info before I make a 500$ experiment ha!
High output 9 port engine (non tuned say 35 plus with 2052) running on 25% fuel provides fast lap time however regardless of tuning unable to make runtime for 5 minutes and must pit in qualy
Only way to make time is to detune engine with (35 plus with 2015) pipe and running 16% fuel. Laps times drop about .2-.3 sec but now able to make 5 minutes. This setup is marginal as motor has to be run on the limit to make time and finding that slightly higher elevation along with low nitro and borderline lean leads to short bearing and engine life.
7 port engine (R1wcs 2052) with power pipe able to make run time on 25% fuel but yields slower lap time at slightly less as detuned 9 port engine. Motor seems to lack top end on straight and short chutes but has good performance off corner.
In this hypothetical scenario would a modified/tuned 7 port engine be worth investing in a compromise between between both scenarios listed above.
I am trying to get some addtl info before I make a 500$ experiment ha!
Last edited by J.Gonzalez; 11-20-2009 at 04:53 AM.
11-20-2009, 05:32 AM
#2
You have to forget the idea that more ports will give more power, it is more a commercial statement than a real technical/performance statement. In a 2-stroke engine timings and dimensions are the most important factors for performance, not the amount of ports.
Beside that, matching materials for piston and sleeve as also the precission of which they are made will determ a huge part for the performance.
3-port engines can run as fast as 9 port engines, I think the .12 touring cars did show that already for years.
Regarding power and consuming, that is for the most part an exhaust thing. Just get a 2013 exhaust and you can reach 5:30 with the 35+ engine. Getting more time is not only a power issue, it is how you setup the complete system:
- exhaust (type)
- manifold (conical or not and length)
- backpressure (there is a lot to play with)
- airfilter/insert
- type of carb needle (yes, there are other types)
And yes, it is possible to get more runtime after tuning the engine. A better flow and different resonances inside the engine can create less loss of the mixture.
Beside that, matching materials for piston and sleeve as also the precission of which they are made will determ a huge part for the performance.
3-port engines can run as fast as 9 port engines, I think the .12 touring cars did show that already for years.
Regarding power and consuming, that is for the most part an exhaust thing. Just get a 2013 exhaust and you can reach 5:30 with the 35+ engine. Getting more time is not only a power issue, it is how you setup the complete system:
- exhaust (type)
- manifold (conical or not and length)
- backpressure (there is a lot to play with)
- airfilter/insert
- type of carb needle (yes, there are other types)
And yes, it is possible to get more runtime after tuning the engine. A better flow and different resonances inside the engine can create less loss of the mixture.
11-20-2009, 02:44 PM
#3
You basically answered your own question
If your engine makes 5 minutes and a lap, (you might cross at 4:59, and pitting on fumes sucks) then you are basically good. Time is always what you look at when trying to make a decision like this. No engine likes to be at the rpm limit like how we constantly bang the 21's in 8th scale but it's how it is and you just have to replace the bearings. Off corner zip can be had from the clutch.
On the flip side to that, I did see Mike Swauger pit at I believe 4 minutes flat at the nationals and switch tires halfway through the hour and was ahead by a lap at the switch, and then ahead by a lap at the end. Everyone else was pitting at 5 and nobody else switched tires except his pit man is spectacular so he can do that. Fuel and 4 tires in 16 seconds. Mike did pit at 4:?? in the qualifiers and it wasn't good for TQ although his pace before the pit was always low.
If your engine makes 5 minutes and a lap, (you might cross at 4:59, and pitting on fumes sucks) then you are basically good. Time is always what you look at when trying to make a decision like this. No engine likes to be at the rpm limit like how we constantly bang the 21's in 8th scale but it's how it is and you just have to replace the bearings. Off corner zip can be had from the clutch.
On the flip side to that, I did see Mike Swauger pit at I believe 4 minutes flat at the nationals and switch tires halfway through the hour and was ahead by a lap at the switch, and then ahead by a lap at the end. Everyone else was pitting at 5 and nobody else switched tires except his pit man is spectacular so he can do that. Fuel and 4 tires in 16 seconds. Mike did pit at 4:?? in the qualifiers and it wasn't good for TQ although his pace before the pit was always low.
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
