The "Perfect" Rebuilt Engine?

[Homer]

 

What about the block? 2nd hand, Titan, imported from US ... ?

 

They're pretty 'cheap' new, but from what I've heard from a few need a full cleanup/hone before building (I'd expect your builder to want this anyway)

[Paul Whiffin]

 

What about the block? 2nd hand, Titan, imported from US ... ?

 

I have a spare block here and a spare crank, cylinder head,etc so I can build an engine up before we remove yours, in and out that way, nice and easy.

[Chris Wilson]

Why has the back wing got about 15 degrees of attack on it? Must be like dragging a parachute along!

[Alex]

Why has the back wing got about 15 degrees of attack on it? Must be like dragging a parachute along!

 

Ben, on similar lines have you tried a lap without the wing? Just curious how many seconds a lap it gives you. (Depending on the circuit of course).

[Chris Wilson]

Nowt to do with me, but without being rude, if you are serious you should bin the "thing" on the back and get a proper profile wing from a big GT car. There are wings and there are body styling "things" You can sometimes pick up suitable profiles from the race car advertising sites.

[Paul Whiffin]

Why has the back wing got about 15 degrees of attack on it? Must be like dragging a parachute along!

 

When I had a go of Steve's car (with the same wing) at RAF Marham, I let off the throttle at about 180mph and it was like hitting the brakes, it really struggled to go much faster, 100% sure its that wing. We were going to try it without it at Snetterton to see what difference it makes. APR have given me wind tunnel results for the wing and reckon its the nuts but from what I gather its mounted to high up for it to be working to its best. Let me give Adrian Newey a quick ring and ask

[b.weeks]

When I had a go of Steve's car (with the same wing) at RAF Marham, I let off the throttle at about 180mph and it was like hitting the brakes, it really struggled to go much faster, 100% sure its that wing. We were going to try it without it at Snetterton to see what difference it makes. APR have given me wind tunnel results for the wing and reckon its the nuts but from what I gather its mounted to high up for it to be working to its best. Let me give Adrian Newey a quick ring and ask

 

I've read in a motor engineering magazine that there's an optimum distance the wing should be from the car - and generally it's a bit closer (will have to find the magazine).

[Paul Whiffin]

Well according to APR it needs to be a certain level below the line of the roof, a bit like it is on our RX7, we've made ours to fit though. To do that on a Supra would require custom made wing mounts made, nothing to drastic.

[Chris Wilson]

Who are APR? Do they do a range of profiles? Where's whatsisname that works in aerodynamics in F1 when he's needed?

[b_have]

Who are APR? Do they do a range of profiles? Where's whatsisname that works in aerodynamics in F1 when he's needed?

 

Think Tony is probably busy working on an aero package for Turkey.

[bolarbag]

Who are APR? Do they do a range of profiles? Where's whatsisname that works in aerodynamics in F1 when he's needed?

 

TLicense?

 

I remember a while a ago reading an F1 magazine and them saying adequate downforce doesnt come into play until 120mph, whether that was particular to F1 cars I cant recall, what are your average cornering speeds in timeattack?

[b.weeks]

TLicense?

 

I remember a while a ago reading an F1 magazine and them saying adequate downforce doesnt come into play until 120mph, whether that was particular to F1 cars I cant recall, what are your average cornering speeds in timeattack?

 

Not 120 :-) But you're right, the wing is for fast corners, although suspect the wings on F1 cars are designed to provide downforce at higher speeds.

[Chris Wilson]

A normal GT size rear wing adds worthwhile downforce over about 70MPH, at an efficient angle of attack. A dual plane wing, if allowed, will aid efficiency. Obviously the car needs some front end downforce to balance it. Not sure what they have done to get anything at the front, it's nothing like low enough, or flat bottomed enough to use venturis effectively at the front, so it'd have to be a big splitter and possibly dive planes too.

[kylestt]

The engine parts Paul listed above would get my thumbs up as well. I would opted for simple stock cam gears and stock oem cam belt. Just personal preference of course.

[mikeyb10supra]

Take some tips from the Mines demo car....now there is a properly built engine and the response is quite frankly sick.

If I were to build an engine, it would be based on there methods and components

[Gazboy]

A normal GT size rear wing adds worthwhile downforce over about 70MPH, at an efficient angle of attack. A dual plane wing, if allowed, will aid efficiency. Obviously the car needs some front end downforce to balance it. Not sure what they have done to get anything at the front, it's nothing like low enough, or flat bottomed enough to use venturis effectively at the front, so it'd have to be a big splitter and possibly dive planes too.

 

The DB9 is a similar shape, perhaps see what their GT cars for front end downforce? (clutching at straws)

[Paul Whiffin]

The engine parts Paul listed above would get my thumbs up as well. I would opted for simple stock cam gears and stock oem cam belt. Just personal preference of course.

 

I know what your saying but we want to play around with the cam timing a bit eventually, just for scientific purposes and all that!

[Chris Wilson]

A nice variable length splitter should be good enough, probably with 5 or 6 inches initial extension.

[Paul Whiffin]

Easily made, we are going to be sticking one on Ben's car in due course, want to get the suspension sorted first off and then we'll get cracking on the fine tuning.

[TLicense]

Personally I would leave the aero side of things well alone. Trust me, it's a lot easier to feck something up than it is to improve it.

 

I've not yet seen any type of aftermarket wing that looks like it's worth it's salt.

I also wouldn't trust the "aero data" from the company trying to flog their own products. I would want to know what efficiency range the wing would work at. The amount of additional downforce and drag it would give at the average corner speed of the circuits you want to run it at. The recommended incidence and mounting position (forward and rearward, as well as height).

They're pretty unlikely to have this information, and even if they did I imagine they're unlikely to give it to you, but if you get just one of these factors wrong, then in all likelihood it will hurt you more than help.

 

Their are two important factors to a good aero package.

Balance and efficiency.

You should treat aero downforce the same as mechanical grip. The only difference is that you don't have as much of it when you're going slower than when you're going faster. But what this means is that it needs to be balanced. Too much rear downforce and you'll understeer in the fast corners. Too much front and you'll oversteer.

As Chris thingymajig has mentioned ( ) the car will need to be balanced. By increasing the rear downforce on a car that in all likelihood has a good amount of turn in understeer, you'll only make the situation worse. As I said, I've not seen a single aftermarket wing that will be any use at all yet, but I've seen even fewer devices that you can attach to the front. Unless you go down the route of bolting a wing to the front of the bonnet (which will look fantastic ) then I can't see how you are going to get a half decent balance.

The particular efficiency range that you need for a circuit will vay depending on that circuits layout. Faster circuit's generally need higher efficiencies than slower circuit's.

Don't confuse this with generating more downforce though. It's the ratio of downforce to drag. High efficiency means less drag for each unit of downforce.

Twin element wings aren't necessarily more efficient. All a two element wing will do is allow a wing to generate downforce at higher incident levels. (Like an aircraft's landing flaps). They enables you to create more downforce, but at the same time can also create more drag. If the ratio is high then it can be said to be efficient, if it's low then obviously the opposite is true.

However, if you push the incidence of either element too hard, or have the gap between the two elements wrong, then you can stall the wing which will mean lots of drag and massively reduced downforce.

As I mentioned, the efficiency level required will be determined by the circuit. The only addition to this is that a higher torque / HP car can get away with having a lower efficiency. This is because the extra engine power can cope with the additional drag loading in the straight line. You can then use the additional, although less efficient downforce you've got in the corners.

 

Essentially, there's a lot more to get wrong than to get right, so unless you are going to invest serious amounts of money into an aero package (I'm talking £10's of thousands at the very least, and more likely 100's of thousands) to try to improve on the aero development that Toyota have already done, I would leave well alone.

[b_have]

Personally I would leave the aero side of things well alone. Trust me, it's a lot easier to feck something up than it is to improve it.

 

I've not yet seen any type of aftermarket wing that looks like it's worth it's salt.

I also wouldn't trust the "aero data" from the company trying to flog their own products. I would want to know what efficiency range the wing would work at. The amount of additional downforce and drag it would give at the average corner speed of the circuits you want to run it at. The recommended incidence and mounting position (forward and rearward, as well as height).

They're pretty unlikely to have this information, and even if they did I imagine they're unlikely to give it to you, but if you get just one of these factors wrong, then in all likelihood it will hurt you more than help.

 

Their are two important factors to a good aero package.

Balance and efficiency.

You should treat aero downforce the same as mechanical grip. The only difference is that you don't have as much of it when you're going slower than when you're going faster. But what this means is that it needs to be balanced. Too much rear downforce and you'll understeer in the fast corners. Too much front and you'll oversteer.

As Chris thingymajig has mentioned ( ) the car will need to be balanced. By increasing the rear downforce on a car that in all likelihood has a good amount of turn in understeer, you'll only make the situation worse. As I said, I've not seen a single aftermarket wing that will be any use at all yet, but I've seen even fewer devices that you can attach to the front. Unless you go down the route of bolting a wing to the front of the bonnet (which will look fantastic ) then I can't see how you are going to get a half decent balance.

The particular efficiency range that you need for a circuit will vay depending on that circuits layout. Faster circuit's generally need higher efficiencies than slower circuit's.

Don't confuse this with generating more downforce though. It's the ratio of downforce to drag. High efficiency means less drag for each unit of downforce.

Twin element wings aren't necessarily more efficient. All a two element wing will do is allow a wing to generate downforce at higher incident levels. (Like an aircraft's landing flaps). They enables you to create more downforce, but at the same time can also create more drag. If the ratio is high then it can be said to be efficient, if it's low then obviously the opposite is true.

However, if you push the incidence of either element too hard, or have the gap between the two elements wrong, then you can stall the wing which will mean lots of drag and massively reduced downforce.

As I mentioned, the efficiency level required will be determined by the circuit. The only addition to this is that a higher torque / HP car can get away with having a lower efficiency. This is because the extra engine power can cope with the additional drag loading in the straight line. You can then use the additional, although less efficient downforce you've got in the corners.

 

Essentially, there's a lot more to get wrong than to get right, so unless you are going to invest serious amounts of money into an aero package (I'm talking £10's of thousands at the very least, and more likely 100's of thousands) to try to improve on the aero development that Toyota have already done, I would leave well alone.

 

Masterclass

[Paul Whiffin]

Personally I would leave the aero side of things well alone. Trust me, it's a lot easier to feck something up than it is to improve it.

 

I've not yet seen any type of aftermarket wing that looks like it's worth it's salt.

I also wouldn't trust the "aero data" from the company trying to flog their own products. I would want to know what efficiency range the wing would work at. The amount of additional downforce and drag it would give at the average corner speed of the circuits you want to run it at. The recommended incidence and mounting position (forward and rearward, as well as height).

They're pretty unlikely to have this information, and even if they did I imagine they're unlikely to give it to you, but if you get just one of these factors wrong, then in all likelihood it will hurt you more than help.

 

Their are two important factors to a good aero package.

Balance and efficiency.

You should treat aero downforce the same as mechanical grip. The only difference is that you don't have as much of it when you're going slower than when you're going faster. But what this means is that it needs to be balanced. Too much rear downforce and you'll understeer in the fast corners. Too much front and you'll oversteer.

As Chris thingymajig has mentioned ( ) the car will need to be balanced. By increasing the rear downforce on a car that in all likelihood has a good amount of turn in understeer, you'll only make the situation worse. As I said, I've not seen a single aftermarket wing that will be any use at all yet, but I've seen even fewer devices that you can attach to the front. Unless you go down the route of bolting a wing to the front of the bonnet (which will look fantastic ) then I can't see how you are going to get a half decent balance.

The particular efficiency range that you need for a circuit will vay depending on that circuits layout. Faster circuit's generally need higher efficiencies than slower circuit's.

Don't confuse this with generating more downforce though. It's the ratio of downforce to drag. High efficiency means less drag for each unit of downforce.

Twin element wings aren't necessarily more efficient. All a two element wing will do is allow a wing to generate downforce at higher incident levels. (Like an aircraft's landing flaps). They enables you to create more downforce, but at the same time can also create more drag. If the ratio is high then it can be said to be efficient, if it's low then obviously the opposite is true.

However, if you push the incidence of either element too hard, or have the gap between the two elements wrong, then you can stall the wing which will mean lots of drag and massively reduced downforce.

As I mentioned, the efficiency level required will be determined by the circuit. The only addition to this is that a higher torque / HP car can get away with having a lower efficiency. This is because the extra engine power can cope with the additional drag loading in the straight line. You can then use the additional, although less efficient downforce you've got in the corners.

 

Essentially, there's a lot more to get wrong than to get right, so unless you are going to invest serious amounts of money into an aero package (I'm talking £10's of thousands at the very least, and more likely 100's of thousands) to try to improve on the aero development that Toyota have already done, I would leave well alone.

 

 

Fancy having a word with Patrick to see if we can use his wind tunnel?

[JamieP]

Toyota use a lower wing than the APR on there race car.

[lockys96]

much wider too

[Alex]

Really hope this is all taken as good helpful advice...as that's how it's all meant. We want to see the Supra's running at the front of the TA events