9 replies to this topic

[sliderule]

Would anyone be interested in seeing a race of openwheeled chassis with roadcar engines and transmissions. For example imagine mating an engine and transmission of a Ferrari GTB Fiorano to an openwheeled chassis and racing it to a similar chassis with the engine and transmission of a BMW M6. In the same race series you could have one of the cars opting for the engine and transmission of a Mercedes SL 55 AMG. You understand where I am coming from. Basically have the powertrain of the best cars on the planet complete in similar if not identical open wheel carbonfiber monocoque chassis and see how well they do agains one another. Interested?

[Yoda McFly]

I nominate myself as the official resurrector of dead threads ...

Anyway.

Interesting concept, but I'm afraid it wouldn't work, at least not with what most of us consider a "single seater."

In a modern (post 1950-whatever) single seater, the engine and gearbox are mounted midships; behind the driver.  The engine (usually) and the 'box (always) are stressed parts of the chassis, which may or may not be good for the specific engine and box.  

Being mid-mounted in the car would raise problems with some of the road-going cars you're undoubtedly thinking of ... Actually, it would likely cause problems with all of them.  

If the road car has a front-mounted engine, then the driveline quite simply wouldn't go into a transverse, mid-mounted installation.  Conversely, if the road car has a mid-engine layout, its 'box might work, but mid-engined road cars usually have the engine mounted transversely, also ... A single-seater, due to the need for a narrow waist, has the engine mounted inline, with a transverse 'box.  I don't know of a road car with an inline engine, transverse 'box layout.  (Of course, while writing this, I just remembered that some of the pre-3-litre cars of the sixties (the '65 Honda comes immediately to mind, there may have been others) did have a transverse engine/transverse 'box layout.  But then, that was a 1.5 litre four-cylinder).

In short, I like your idea of race cars using "production" components ... But I don't think it would be practical in an open-wheel format.

But then, that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

[Autumnpuma]

My take is that it's possible, but you'd have to drop the transmission part of your idea (for reasons explained by Yoda above). You could take the engine of each manufacturer and mate it with a semi-standard tranny (rear-mounted, most likely) and drop that into a spec chassis...

...but I'd rather watch ALMS or any saloon championship. It's my opinion that each car is designed to be a complete package and should be raced as such.

[Jean Todt]

Autumnpuma, on Jul 20 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

My take is that it's possible, but you'd have to drop the transmission part of your idea (for reasons explained by Yoda above). You could take the engine of each manufacturer and mate it with a semi-standard tranny (rear-mounted, most likely) and drop that into a spec chassis...

...but I'd rather watch ALMS or any saloon championship. It's my opinion that each car is designed to be a complete package and should be raced as such.

   Just a doubt, if the engine is a stressed memeber in a midengined car, does that mean AMG makes  special engines for Pagani Zonda??? that too, virtually the same engine found in previouse generation Mercedes-benz S-600??? (merc used a smaller bore 6liter, zonda uses a 7.21) but i am really confused if so...cos wouldnt it make sense for amg to develop a whole new engine for zonda instead of adapting and changing every part to counter extra power and torque leaving only the engine block? if they do share the engine block, dont they have to make it extra strong to conter stress if the engine is one of the stressed members ???

plaese dont mind the spelling mistakes!!!!!

[cavallino]

The Zonda costs a lot, I wouldn't be surprised if Pagani paid Mercedes to make a special engine for them.

[Yoda McFly]

I wasn't clear.

In a mid-engined road car, the engine and 'box are typically not stressed members.  My point was that in a mid-engined open-wheeler, the engine and 'box are stressed, thereby leading to the potential for problems.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Jean Todt]

Yoda McFly, on Jul 21 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

I wasn't clear.

In a mid-engined road car, the engine and 'box are typically not stressed members.  My point was that in a mid-engined open-wheeler, the engine and 'box are stressed, thereby leading to the potential for problems.

Sorry for the confusion.

     but some where i read that some of the midengined cars do have their engines as stressed memebers. i dont remember which one....

[Yoda McFly]

abbas_gear, on Jul 21 2006, 07:18 AM, said:

but some where i read that some of the midengined cars do have their engines as stressed memebers. i dont remember which one....

Wouldn't surprise me ... My original point, however, was that if the specific lump and box weren't originally intended to be stressed, they'd likely fail if shoehorned into an installation where they were stressed.

Although, I suppose it would be possible to design a chassis wherein the drivetrain were not stressed memebers.  It would make the overall chassis heavier, but it would allow more of a "drop-in" of driveline components.

I remember a couple of years ago, on one of the "Build or Bust" type of "reality show" (can't remember what it was called, the one on Discovery Channel with Jesse James.... "Monster Garage"?).  Anyway, the challenge was to take a Reynard ChampCar chassis that had been stripped of its engine and electronics and make it go again.

The short version, IIRC, was they took an American small-block crate engine (I want to say a Chevy 350, but, the memory is pretty rusty these days), attached it to a trans of some variety (tremec?), then ditched the Reynard 'box and set a trusty narrowed Ford 9" rear-end between the wheels.  They lengthened the chassis by fabbing up some frame-rails that tied the rear end, rear wing mount, etc to the tub, and essentially dropped the engine and trans in.

With the lengthened wheelbase, I would expect handling to suffer, but they did bodge it together, and the resultant car was able to drive around and do donuts.  It only looked half as hideous as I expected it to when I heard of the project.

So, much of my earlier rant probably goes to the wayside.  Design a single-seater chassis for drop-in, non-stressed driveline mounting, and you could have something.

[Autumnpuma]

Yoda McFly, on Jul 21 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

Wouldn't surprise me ... My original point, however, was that if the specific lump and box weren't originally intended to be stressed, they'd likely fail if shoehorned into an installation where they were stressed.

Although, I suppose it would be possible to design a chassis wherein the drivetrain were not stressed memebers.  It would make the overall chassis heavier, but it would allow more of a "drop-in" of driveline components.

I remember a couple of years ago, on one of the "Build or Bust" type of "reality show" (can't remember what it was called, the one on Discovery Channel with Jesse James.... "Monster Garage"?).  Anyway, the challenge was to take a Reynard ChampCar chassis that had been stripped of its engine and electronics and make it go again.

The short version, IIRC, was they took an American small-block crate engine (I want to say a Chevy 350, but, the memory is pretty rusty these days), attached it to a trans of some variety (tremec?), then ditched the Reynard 'box and set a trusty narrowed Ford 9" rear-end between the wheels.  They lengthened the chassis by fabbing up some frame-rails that tied the rear end, rear wing mount, etc to the tub, and essentially dropped the engine and trans in.

With the lengthened wheelbase, I would expect handling to suffer, but they did bodge it together, and the resultant car was able to drive around and do donuts.  It only looked half as hideous as I expected it to when I heard of the project.

So, much of my earlier rant probably goes to the wayside.  Design a single-seater chassis for drop-in, non-stressed driveline mounting, and you could have something.

That's essentially what I posted a few comments up...

Autumnpuma, on Jul 20 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

My take is that it's possible, but you'd have to drop the transmission part of your idea (for reasons explained by Yoda above). You could take the engine of each manufacturer and mate it with a semi-standard tranny (rear-mounted, most likely) and drop that into a spec chassis...

I maintain (and Yoda proved it with his post about the gutted ChampCar chassis) that the basic idea of the OP would not work as well in reality as it would seem in theory. Too many engineering compromises would have to take place; dilluting the pure idea of engine/tranny vs engine/tranny.  Far better to watch the actual, whole car race as it was designed to.

Edited by Autumnpuma, 21 July 2006 - 05:15 PM.

[Yoda McFly]

  

Okay, so I was wrong ... They used a Ford lump ( ) and a B & M trans ... And only added 17" to the wheelbase.

Here's a link to the episode synopsis, with a photo gallery of the car.  Obviously, ignore the line-painting hardware.

Monster Garage 32:  ChampCar Line Painter

But overall, I'm in agreement with Autumpuma; it could be done, but it's probably not practical.  Just race the cars as their designers intended 'em.

Edited by Yoda McFly, 21 July 2006 - 05:38 PM.