I'm gonna have to look at my notes, but I seem to remember that the Menard V6 would spit everything out on the floor at 9,800.Originally posted by insider
I did hear that the 1996 Menard Buicks could rev up to 10,300 rpm
I'll look it up when I get to work.
"IRL" ... what IS that anyway?
J. Michael RinghamIndyCar® Series Indy Pro Series™
Vice President, Marketing
www.jonescams.com yankeegoback.com
Sounds like my 2yr old.Originally posted by CamKing
I'm gonna have to look at my notes, but I seem to remember that the Menard V6 would spit everything out on the floor at 9,800.
Good inside stuff. Definitely lacking here at TF for some time.
Camking, Nice having dinner with ya.
Insider, Hopel\fully I'll be seeing you this Thursday at the flagroom.
It's funny, you two worked on parts of the same team and then sorta had a disagreement here on the forums. Just amusing from where I'm sitting.
Keep up the interesting talk, still a few months away from the start of openwheel racing.
in 1995, 9,900 was border line. i was suprised to hear that they where using 10300 in 1996, Just gossip and i have no evidence to surport this.
290.260
Ji,
I'm sure i must have met "camking" in 1995, but i cannot place him.
No disrespect intended.
239.260
Originally posted by insider
in 1995, 9,900 was border line. i was suprised to hear that they where using 10300 in 1996, Just gossip and i have no evidence to surport this.
290.260
I'm from a place called the internet. Nothing disturbs me.
debdrake,
oop's! i must have have over boosted while celibrating the colts win.
Well spotted, nice to know that at least one person is paying attention.
239.260
Cam King,
I can't speak with any authority whatsoever to the 1995 Menard engine, since I was not involved nor did I have any access to any data from it. But I did have my head stuck in on the Buick Indy program a decade earlier [...back when I had real job]. Here is some info I dredged up I believe to be accurate:
1985 Buick Indy V6
209 CID turbocharged @ 57" Hg abs, methanol
Buick Stage II iron case
3.80" bore x 3.06" stroke
9.25:1 CR
40cc chamber, .040" gasket
1.485" comp. height
9.56" deck height
6.5" rod
Buick Stage II cylinder head, modified
230 cc intake port, 1.60"h x 1.48"w
2.08" dia. Intake valve, Ti
[20.38 sq in total intake valve area]
1.60" dia. exhaust valve, Inconel
[12.06" sq in total exhaust valve area]
108 degree lobe separation
276 degrees int/exh duration @.050"
Int/Exh lift at lobe .400"
.655" net valve lift
Intake lobe center in @ 107 degrees
On the dyno [corrected to 60F at 29.92" Hg] this deal made:
802 bhp @ 8400 rpm
540 lb ft @ 6000 rpm
However, according to your formula this engine will make only 574 bhp.
209 x 8400 x 9.25 x 14.697 / 792,000 = 301.35
[57/29.92] = 1.905 x 301.35 = 574 hp
Since I am not the Cam King [more a frequent pawn of that industry] maybe you can tell me what I am missing here.
Also, I understand this engine evolved consderably over the years, getting a shorter stroke/larger bore, a much better Dart cylinder head and some other goodies. The limitations of this engine are of course the six cylinders and two-valve layout, which are going to give you problems with valve area and piston speed in any case. But if they could get 10,000 rpm out of the thing *and* get it to breathe up there, 1,000+ bhp does not appear out of the question...to me anyway.
Changing the gearing will not alter the torque/power characteristics of the engine. However, it is possible to get the gearing so wrong that the car can't use what the engine has.Originally posted by Novi-
? Can peek HP/torq be moved up/down, within a given range that's probly dictated by cam profile, by final gear ratio, or on a dyno by how much water you run it against?
Nor does the dyno alter the torque/power characteristics. However, as far as the numbers themselves are concerned, there are at least five temp/air pressure correction factors in use that I know of, plus a lot of other fun & games, self-deception, and outright cheating that can be done. Insider talked about a leaky door at a wind tunnel. You can pull the same trick in the dyno room by moving the temp sensor closer to the air vent, etc. Not that anyone would ever do that. Oh, no. Dyno personnel have a rigid code of conduct. Right.
However, cam timing can have a profound effect on the torque and power curves. For example, on engines like this (single camshaft) advancing the cam will tend to increase mid-range torque at the expense of peak power, while retarding it will tend to cause the opposite. More duration will also tend to increase peak hp at the expense of torque and vice versa. This is strictly in broad terms -- there are always limits and exceptions.
If the engine is equipped with separate intake and exhaust cams, like most purpose-built race engines: advancing the intake cam and/or retarding the exhaust cam will *tend to* fill out the torque curve,. etc and vice versa. And if you are the Cam King and have cam grinders at your disposal, you can accomplish the same thing with a single camshaft by opening or closing the lobe centerlines when you grind it. It's pure dark art at times and I'm sure the Cam King can tell you a lot more about this subject than I ever could.
Thank you Insider and others. You certainly can't find this type of information in the newspaper during the month of May or any other time for that matter. I was around the speedway very often during '96, and like most, was clueless about what was really going on behind the scenes. I just remember laps closing in on 240, and I knew that change was on the way and that I'd better enjoy it then. Fascinating stuff!
Yep, that was a great era...to me, watching the big guns shoot it out for the pole was nearly as big as the race. Too bad we no longer have the Pole Day excitement as it once was but I do understand why it must be -- Lord knows how fast the cars would be today had they not slowed them down.Originally posted by Roadrage
Thank you Insider and others. You certainly can't find this type of information in the newspaper during the month of May or any other time for that matter. I was around the speedway very often during '96, and like most, was clueless about what was really going on behind the scenes. I just remember laps closing in on 240, and I knew that change was on the way and that I'd better enjoy it then. Fascinating stuff!
Which leads to a question: Tim, if there were no aero restrictions on the the 2003 (3.5 liter) package, how fast a lap do you think you could make one do at the Speedway?
Heheh, reminds me of a U-tube manometer I used to have for testing of high static pressure duct systems. It was, uh, adjustable.....Originally posted by mcguireb
......a lot of other fun & games, self-deception, and outright cheating that can be done. Insider talked about a leaky door at a wind tunnel. You can pull the same trick in the dyno room by moving the temp sensor closer to the air vent, etc. Not that anyone would ever do that. Oh, no. Dyno personnel have a rigid code of conduct. Right.
debdrake you dont have to wait any longer. a Buick engine was built for a tire test at Indianapolis, Scott Brayton was the driver. Insider is right that at that time 55 inches of boost was allowed and the engine made around 950 horsepower. This particular qualifying spec. engine had a system installed on it that made it produce 1230 horsepower with 55 inches of boost at 10,000 RPM, but was only supposed to be run a distance of less than 100 miles. Scott did run 252 down the backstreach but in the short chute, between turn three and four the engine exploded and put Scott into the turn four fence. Luckily Scott wasnt hurt but the car was heavily damaged. That engine had close to 500 miles testing on it. Camking, fudging the horsepower numbers on the dyno was never done. Menards dyno is maintained very closely and is one of the finest dynos in racing. Insider was a valuable part of the engine program, but wasnt kept in the loop on everything that was going on.
a system installed on it.
I can just imagine.
Best thread in a very long time.
BTW: Is your son named Mike?
Originally posted by jl
a system installed on it.
I can just imagine.
Best thread in a very long time.
BTW: Is your son named Mike?
Heh heh heh, he said system
An engineer wasn't kept in the loop on everything that was going on in the engine program? Noooooooooooooooooooooo........
SENÓR MODERATOR......
"Better To Be Judged By Twelve Than Carried By Six"
" Only Those Who Will Risk Going Too Far....Can Possibly Find Out How Far One Can Go "...T.S. Elliot....
Originally posted by dog-ring
Heh heh heh, he said system
An engineer wasn't kept in the loop on everything that was going on in the engine program? Noooooooooooooooooooooo........
The bottle(s) for a 4 lap system would be kind of hard to miss wouldn't it?
Plumbing is a lot easier to camouflage than storage.
Of course, there was that cup car a while back where they discovered the gas was perking in with the oil system. But that didn't give nearly this amount of boost.
How long would it make the 1230hp before the "System" had to be re-charged???Originally posted by IRLRACER
This particular qualifying spec. engine had a system installed on it that made it produce 1230 horsepower with 55 inches of boost at 10,000 RPM, but was only supposed to be run a distance of less than 100 miles.
BTW, your numbers still look like you're calculating some kind of frictional loss factors into them.
If those numbers are from the Buick Brayton ran in 1985, those specs are wrong. The cam that year was .389" lobe lift on 112 L/C. I would also expect that the compresion ratio is wrong. I think it was around 12:1.Originally posted by mcguireb
Cam King,
I can't speak with any authority whatsoever to the 1995 Menard engine, since I was not involved nor did I have any access to any data from it. But I did have my head stuck in on the Buick Indy program a decade earlier [...back when I had real job]. Here is some info I dredged up I believe to be accurate:
1985 Buick Indy V6
209 CID turbocharged @ 57" Hg abs, methanol
Buick Stage II iron case
3.80" bore x 3.06" stroke
9.25:1 CR
40cc chamber, .040" gasket
1.485" comp. height
9.56" deck height
6.5" rod
Buick Stage II cylinder head, modified
230 cc intake port, 1.60"h x 1.48"w
2.08" dia. Intake valve, Ti
[20.38 sq in total intake valve area]
1.60" dia. exhaust valve, Inconel
[12.06" sq in total exhaust valve area]
108 degree lobe separation
276 degrees int/exh duration @.050"
Int/Exh lift at lobe .400"
.655" net valve lift
Intake lobe center in @ 107 degrees
On the dyno [corrected to 60F at 29.92" Hg] this deal made:
802 bhp @ 8400 rpm
540 lb ft @ 6000 rpm
However, according to your formula this engine will make only 574 bhp.
209 x 8400 x 9.25 x 14.697 / 792,000 = 301.35
[57/29.92] = 1.905 x 301.35 = 574 hp
Since I am not the Cam King [more a frequent pawn of that industry] maybe you can tell me what I am missing here.
You can also add 3-6% for the methonal fuel.
Hey IRLRACER i have the dyno sheet that can back that post up hehe!!!
oh and the menard dyno was very well taken care of by a full time ((DYNO TROLL)) who is the best in the business. that dyno was checked and double checked to the tee. if your in the business for making horsepower and out runing the other guy, you gotta keep things right or your just beating yourself!!!
hey jl email me i might know that mike.
INDYFAN33
MCQUIREB
That's a tough one. I will have to check some old tunnel fig's and think about that question.
IRLRACER and INDYFAN33
When Brayton crashed at the tire test, it was the last run of the day. He came into view backwards and hit in turn 4. A big hit. The team jumped on to the pit cart and headed off to T4. I started to walk in that direction and in the distance i could see this figure in a green firesuit, running and limping in my direction. When we met in the pit lane, this sweating, hobbling person said "Doc, load me up another one!" God bless you Scottie.
I was aware that L.C had experimented with a "system" in the past, but Menards devinitely did not use this in May 1995. I insisted that i had a dyno sheet for every engine as they all gave different power curves so i could massage the gear ratios after an engine change to save time. If the engine suddenly produced 200 more h.p, i would have seen this and earned a m f'ing from L.C for screwing up the ratios.
I am sure that that "systems" etc where tried in the "Bunker" as i could not be in there for every dyno run. Menards relied on the boost situation for the "unfair-unfair advantage" in 1995.
It is my understanding that this "system" was tried the following year, very briefly with Cheever. L.C had a habit of timeing his cars on the entry to turn 4 and on Eddie's fast lap with the "system" and was heard to exlclaim "hoooly shiiiit!!!" The track went yellow
whilst Eddie was in T4, but still an official lap of 237+.
The secret to using nitrous at the s'way is to press the button on the exit of turns 1+2 for few seconds so as not to arouse suspicion by seeing outrageous top end trap speeds.
Nitrous oxide comes in two basic forms, commercial and medical. The commercial version has sulpha added to it to stop people sniffing it and it's this compound that makes it traceable.
Medical nitrous is available if you have the right connections.
CAMKING
It would appear that my opinion of the 95 Buick hp would hold H2o but not N2o.
239.260
Seems to me that back circa the early 90's, I remember Chris Economacki doing a live tv shot from pit lane, and a car (unidentifiable) went past behind him - and he suddenly started coughing and choking, and mumbled something about "nitrous" - always wondered just who the culprit was. Also I seem to recall someone saying you could tell by looking at the inside of the exhaust - it turned them a funny color? Dunno if true or not.
Also have heard the stories of Foyt hiding a nitrous bottle inside his pant leg. Maybe some of the guys we thought were doing the "indycar shuffle" were really just hiding something in their pants???
And speaking of the Menard team - this probably would have been 92, 93... I recall that during Indy practice, every time the car came into the pits, a crewman would be bending over doing something - sure looked to me as if he had a spray can of neon paint and was doing a quick touchup to the front of the sidepods. Purely cosmetic, or were they hiding something?
Actually one of the wildest things I remember from the speedway was when Cheever got a couple laps down in the pits, then started cranking out lap after lap around - what was it - 236 or better? Did he just go bonkers and figure he'd pound it until it blew, or was there something not quite legal in that one? (BTW, I couldn't believe how long he ran like that - especially given the innate un-reliability of the buick).
What they were doing was trying to eliminate the car scraping. They would spray the paint on the scraped part of the underwing and then check it the next time it came in to see if their adjustments were helping.Originally posted by debdrake
And speaking of the Menard team - this probably would have been 92, 93... I recall that during Indy practice, every time the car came into the pits, a crewman would be bending over doing something - sure looked to me as if he had a spray can of neon paint and was doing a quick touchup to the front of the sidepods. Purely cosmetic, or were they hiding something?
Ah, that makes sense. Although I thought I remembered them being up a bit higher on the car, but it was a long time ago, and I'm probably wrong on that. At the time I wondered if it had something to do with the neon colors, if they came off easier or somesuch.
Now this... is a great thread.
Please continue folks.
Tj
Sam Hornish Jr. 2006 Indianapolis 500 and IRL Champion. :D
Those cams came out of Los Alamitos, CA.Originally posted by indyfan33
didnt some of those cams that were in the motors come from england ???? i know some of them were comp cams.
Menard and Brayton bought cams from everyone under the sun, but they couldn't beat mine for HP and reliability, so they had to keep buying mine. If they spent as much time working with me as they did trying to find someone that could beat me, they would have been much better off.
Just for interest's sake, this is the data Ilmor publishes.
1994 Ilmor 265E (Mercedes-Benz 500I)
V-Angle: 72 degrees
Cylinders: V8
Displacement: 3.43 liters (209.3 ci.)
Boost: 1.86 bar (55" of Hg)
Bore x Stroke: 97 mm x 58 mm (3.82" x 2.28")
Power: 763.6 kW (1,024 bhp) at 9,800 rpm
Redline: 10,500 rpm
Torque: 755 nm (557 lb-ft) at 8,000 rpm
"I kill for the code to disarm this mess..."
I thought it was based off the 4valve Ilmor block that was 90 degrees ?Originally posted by Marc P. Gregoire
Just for interest's sake, this is the data Ilmor publishes.
1994 Ilmor 265E (Mercedes-Benz 500I)
V-Angle: 72 degrees
Ilmor's 4 valve block in 1994 was 82 degrees. They have used 76, 80, 82 and 90 degree blocks on the 4 cam motors but never 72.Originally posted by CamKing
I thought it was based off the 4valve Ilmor block that was 90 degrees ?
That's why I don't understand the 72. 72 degree bank angle is what you would run on a V10. I was told the engine had a common pin crank, which would mean that it would have to use a 90 degree block.Originally posted by Marc P. Gregoire
They have used 76, 80, 82 and 90 degree blocks on the 4 cam motors but never 72.
I remember reading in Autoweek that it was 82 degrees on the pushrod Ilmor. The Greenfield engine was 90 degrees. Whatever the angle, I still have to wonder if the engine were dumbed down by boost and rev limits to 700-750 hp, wouldn't it make a good, reliable and less expensive engine than that which the IRL runs now.Originally posted by CamKing
That's why I don't understand the 72. 72 degree bank angle is what you would run on a V10. I was told the engine had a common pin crank, which would mean that it would have to use a 90 degree block.
Proud to be a complainer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks