|
An extremely tidy Alfa Sprint with a turbo: 
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
LMP1 cars always looked massive to me until I saw a picture of one of the new Porsches and realised they're smaller than a 911.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:It makes me wonder how all of this applied with steam powered cars, and what might be possible with one using modern technology. You mean this? 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Interesting! Would a steam turbine car work differently? I imagine it would have a torque/power curve more like a jet turbine than a traditional steam engine. Has anyone tried making a steam engine/car/whatever but instead of using the reciprocating piston design, use a rotary trochoid or some other method of turning pressure into motive force (besides a turbine)?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
I saw a how it's made episode on a steam engine to use in cars and boats and stuff but it was still piston based. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPpelLCIkk
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I saw a how it's made episode on a steam engine to use in cars and boats and stuff but it was still piston based. Has "How It's Made" cheaped out? Why does the narration sound like it was done with some text to voice software?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
MetaJew posted:Has "How It's Made" cheaped out? Why does the narration sound like it was done with some text to voice software? Pretty sure its one of the cheapest shows out there. Send a crew to film poo poo. Narrate. Edit. Done.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
MetaJew posted:Has "How It's Made" cheaped out? Why does the narration sound like it was done with some text to voice software? It's a french Canadian lady trying to hide her accent. The British version of the show uses the same footage, but is voiced over by some British guy that makes the lamest jokes known to man.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
MetaJew posted:Has "How It's Made" cheaped out? Why does the narration sound like it was done with some text to voice software? Maybe they've switched - but OTOH the pat delivery sounds the same as human narrators did, so it's no big 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Powershift posted:It's a french Canadian lady trying to hide her accent. I think it's the same narrator that does Mythbusters in the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I saw a how it's made episode on a steam engine to use in cars and boats and stuff but it was still piston based. So bizarre seeing a radial with an even cylinder count. The old gas-powered radials you see in old fighters and such have to use an odd number of cylinder, entirely because of the four-stroke cycle; if each cylinder fired in sequence, you'd have a full powered crankshaft revolution followed by a full unpowered one, which isn't great for performance, so they fire every other one as the shaft spins. If they used an even number, only half the cylinders would fire, so they have to use an odd number, usually 5 or 7 (sometimes multiple rows, ie 14 or 28 cylinders).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I think it's the same narrator that does Mythbusters in the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:So bizarre seeing a radial with an even cylinder count. The old gas-powered radials you see in old fighters and such have to use an odd number of cylinder, entirely because of the four-stroke cycle; if each cylinder fired in sequence, you'd have a full powered crankshaft revolution followed by a full unpowered one, which isn't great for performance, so they fire every other one as the shaft spins. If they used an even number, only half the cylinders would fire, so they have to use an odd number, usually 5 or 7 (sometimes multiple rows, ie 14 or 28 cylinders). That is an unbelievably neat thing I was completely unaware of. I sat here for a couple of minutes re-thinking it to make sure there wasn't some sort of illogical bullshit but, it all makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:That is an unbelievably neat thing I was completely unaware of. I sat here for a couple of minutes re-thinking it to make sure there wasn't some sort of illogical bullshit but, it all makes sense. That probably makes the timing easier, but I can't see why it must be odd numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:So bizarre seeing a radial with an even cylinder count. The old gas-powered radials you see in old fighters and such have to use an odd number of cylinder, entirely because of the four-stroke cycle; if each cylinder fired in sequence, you'd have a full powered crankshaft revolution followed by a full unpowered one, which isn't great for performance, so they fire every other one as the shaft spins. If they used an even number, only half the cylinders would fire, so they have to use an odd number, usually 5 or 7 (sometimes multiple rows, ie 14 or 28 cylinders). Not really; an odd number of cylinders in a radial engine maintains the "fire every other cylinder" firing order that they use. For example, a seven cylinder radial has a firing order of 1-3-5-7-2-4-6, which as you can see produces a firing order where the gap is constantly one cylinder, even between the end of one firing cycle and the beginning of another. In a six cylinder radial, it would be 1-3-5-2-4-6, which has a two cylinder gap between the firing of #5 and #2 and a zero cylinder gap between the end of the cycle at #6 and the beginning of the next cycle at #1. An even-cylindered single row radial would not last long as it would quickly shake itself to pieces (or at least tear itself off the engine mounts). Now a double row radial gets a lot more complicated in terms of firing order; typically you fire the top cylinder of one row, then the bottom cylinder of the next row, then continue that pattern offset by 120 degrees until all the cylinders have fired. In a 14 cylinder, double-row radial (with one row numbered 1-7 and the second row 8-14), the firing order is 1-10-5-14-9-4-13-8-3-12-7-2-11-6. And if you REALLY want complicated, look now further than the firing order of the Pratt R-4360 4-row, 28-cylinder engine...it's enough to make my pea-sized pilot brain spin like the turbine engines I am so very grateful for.  As an aside, you will never find a multi-row radial engine with an odd number of rows, as again you can't maintain a smooth firing order in such an engine.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Ludicro posted:So when myself and my dad were on the London to Brighton Mini run yesterday... Did you break down? We broke down.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
MrChips posted:And if you REALLY want complicated, look now further than the firing order of the Pratt R-4360 4-row, 28-cylinder engine...it's enough to make my pea-sized pilot brain spin like the turbine engines I am so very grateful for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBMsdXGOm5A That is insane. It seems like there would be so many moving parts working in such severe conditions that stuff would be breaking constantly, but I guess it must be pretty reliable to have been used in airplanes?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
You call that a big radial? Try this 42 cylinder 143.6 liter radial diesel built for Soviet missile boats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvezda_M503 Oh, and some Germans decided to fuel it with methanol and stick it in a tractor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPR8zBSNOgE
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
A local shop has a Testarossa & 355 for sale.  & a Volvo 244 DL someone I work with showed up in today. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Screw the Ferraris, I want that Volvo 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Out of curiousity, how much are they asking for those Ferraris? I'm a few years away (since I need a house with a garage first) but I've been fascinated by the idea of owning an 80s-era Ferrari for a while now, so I'm keeping an eye on the prices.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
I'll always love the design of the Testarossa but I can't think of a car I would ever actually drive anywhere knowing I was getting 9mpg. Okay maybe a Unimog. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
davebo posted:I'll always love the design of the Testarossa but I can't think of a car I would ever actually drive anywhere knowing I was getting 9mpg. Disregarding the cost, I'm so used to diesel cars that anything with less than a 500 mile range pisses me off. Saying that it's the first worldest of fist world problems, and it's not like you are going to be doing business trips in one.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBMsdXGOm5A Believe me, things broke all the time with those engines; even by the meagre standards of the day, the R-4360 was not a particularly reliable engine. According to the old salts I know, the last, high-powered radial engines (like the R-4360 and the Wright R-3350) had a 50% chance of failure before 50 hours of operation; if they lasted that long, they'd typically be good for up to 2,500 hours after that, provided they weren't abused and were maintained properly. Contrast that to the modern Pratt and Whitney Canada PW100-series turboprop engine, which puts out roughly the same kind of power as those late model radials. Not only is the PW100 literally a ton lighter than the R-4360 (and about 1,300 pounds lighter than the Wright R-3350), it can run on the aircraft without overhaul so long as the maintenance monitoring program show no abnormalities, which could be several thousand hours...maybe more (the reduction gearbox is another story altogether though).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
stump posted:Disregarding the cost, I'm so used to diesel cars that anything with less than a 500 mile range pisses me off. Saying that it's the first worldest of fist world problems, and it's not like you are going to be doing business trips in one. I never understood the huge range thing that VW is pushing now. 0o0o0o the Passat TDI can go 745 miles (in perfect conditions and pushing the limits of the fuel gauge). My TDI can do 650 if I'm nice to it, but at most I -might- put 200 miles at a time on it before I need to get out and pee and stretch my legs. At that point I usually top off anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:I never understood the huge range thing that VW is pushing now. 0o0o0o the Passat TDI can go 745 miles (in perfect conditions and pushing the limits of the fuel gauge). My TDI can do 650 if I'm nice to it, but at most I -might- put 200 miles at a time on it before I need to get out and pee and stretch my legs. At that point I usually top off anyway. I'm might an edge case, because of the roads I drive my piss stops are rarely at fuel stops, and I loathe fuelling above a quarter tank, if not on the fuel light! With a ~500 mile range I can do a weeks work with only fuelling up once, which is handy in rural areas.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
I don't really drive much mileage at all, so I can pretty much ignore fuel economy as a factor when choosing cars. The actual financial difference to me of 10mpg vs 40mpg is minor.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I don't really drive much mileage at all, so I can pretty much ignore fuel economy as a factor when choosing cars. The actual financial difference to me of 10mpg vs 40mpg is minor.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
stump posted:I'm might an edge case, because of the roads I drive my piss stops are rarely at fuel stops, and I loathe fuelling above a quarter tank, if not on the fuel light! With a ~500 mile range I can do a weeks work with only fuelling up once, which is handy in rural areas. My long road trips are from Denver to Houston(ish) along i70 and i35, so truck stops are pretty much the only place to stop and take a leak. I'm paranoid about running my car out of fuel because I'm already on borrowed time with this flimsy hpfp.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Since I commute 175~ miles every weekday, range is something I care about. That's why I drive a Nissan Titan. And fill up every other day.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Pfffft fuel economy
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
13 INCH DICK posted:Pfffft fuel economy Says the man who drives a rollerskate with a lawnmower engine.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Out of curiousity, how much are they asking for those Ferraris? There's no prices and I never really asked. I think they're basically acting as a middle man for the person selling it.. I asked about the Testarossa when it was in the shop dismantled and they said you can get them as low as $40k apparently.. That one just had all the major maintenance done to it within the last three months. I've no clue on the 355 though.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
13 INCH DICK posted:Pfffft fuel economy Fieros are pretty good on gas from what I understand, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Even after adding a literal ton of fibreglass and bondo?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Baram posted:There's no prices and I never really asked. I think they're basically acting as a middle man for the person selling it.. I asked about the Testarossa when it was in the shop dismantled and they said you can get them as low as $40k apparently.. That one just had all the major maintenance done to it within the last three months. I've no clue on the 355 though. There was an issue of Car & Driver a couple months ago that talked about the ownership costs of a Testarossa. There were some astronomical numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Yee!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:There was an issue of Car & Driver a couple months ago that talked about the ownership costs of a Testarossa. There were some astronomical numbers. Yeah I kinda figured that the real cost would come in ownership and maintenance costs as opposite to sale value. Especially with how it looked when they had it apart. I'll post some more cars while I'm here. Lotus Esprit V8  Willys Truck  Detomaso Pantera  e39 M5 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
88h88 posted:Yee! Well, I guess that's one thing you can do with your XP Falcon
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
88h88 posted:Yee! im sorry but there is only enough room in my heart for one shitbox falcon driftcar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpjntBYn1Kc
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:06
|
|
