GRE = Globally Renowned Errata?

[Enjun Pullr]

"Since this is a friendly learning exchange, consider this."

"A little knowledge is only dangerous if you actually do more than post on the internet."

Cheers, mate.

[Hoop-98]

"Since this is a friendly learning exchange, consider this."

"A little knowledge is only dangerous if you actually do more than post on the internet."

Cheers, mate.

Vice versa...

[grungex]

Since your search is getting better look up Bruce Wood's explanation on why the XFE couldn't easily have the power upped.

Perhaps you could post a link to support this. The only quote I found was him talking about about twin-turbos and 950 hp.

"The XFE has been a huge success but Cosworth is always looking ahead and XF design chief Bruce Wood has been overseeing plans to increase power in 2009 up to 18,000 rpm and over 950 horsepower when Cosworth builds Champ Car's new XFE-2 V8 Turbocharged engine in company with the introduction of the DP01 spec 2 Champ car."

[Hoop-98]

Perhaps you could post a link to support this. The only quote I found was him talking about about twin-turbos and 950 hp.

That was a totally bogus misquote, lol...

"The XFE has been a huge success but Cosworth is always looking ahead and XF design chief Bruce Wood has been overseeing plans to increase power in 2009 up to 18,000 rpm and over 950 horsepower when Cosworth builds Champ Car's new XFE-2 V8 Turbocharged engine in company with the introduction of the DP01 spec 2 Champ car."

The real quote:

The XFE has been so successful Wood observes, that it’s worth relying on one of life’s golden rules.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” he remarked. “You’ve got a great starting point and I think it would be folly to throw all that away.”

Cosworth’s discussions with Champ Car about ‘07 soon settled on a few, key areas.

“In the early days of our conversations with Scott and Champ Car we talked about ideas like that, but reasonably quickly we moved away from those ideas,” Wood said. “Where we’re really at now is looking at the big things that are remaining in the spec.

“At the moment we’re at 750 horsepower, and 800 with push-to-pass. What we would like to do is make sure we can use those same specs at the high altitude races. So we are looking at a different compressor wheel for ‘07 that we can package differently.

“The Lola chassis is such that the air filter and the ducting is pretty ugly, but we couldn’t get any more speed out of the turbo even if it was neatly done. But that’s because the car was never designed to have an air filter. With the Panoz it will be an all-new design, so we’ll make sure the inlet is a lot nicer. So we’ll have a different compressor wheel and probably a different compressor so we can run the high altitude races at full spec.”

An increase in power is likely in 2007, but even a small change requires a lot of complementary work.

“Champ Car are talking about increasing the base power to 775 horsepower and 850 on push-to-pass,” Wood said. “We’ve had a good look at what that will take to do, and it’s actually a reasonable amount of work. In the old days we used to have a pre-compressor injection system. It was called a ring of fire. The fuel went through the turbo. We moved those injectors up to the plenum for the XFE so that we could eliminate the maintenance of those injectors. With the decreased boost we have and the lower revs, we would definitely need more fuel in the plenum as a cooling effect to get back up to 850 horsepower.

“People say, you were at 900 and more horsepower in the old days. How can it be a problem to get 850? They forget we were at 900 horsepower at 16,500 rpm and now we’re limited to 12,000 rpm which is very much the durability limit. Any power we can achieve with the boost limit puts so much more gas loading on the engine. It’s not just a question of winding the knob up.

“If we do go for 850 we’ll certainly have to re-piston all the engines and possibly return to pre-compressor injection, but more likely putting extra injectors before the plenum and, as I say, there will be a different compressor wheel. We’ll have to increase the cooling a little bit and we’ll have to increase the fuel pump volume. It used to turn at speeds relative to 16,500 rpm and now it’s turning relative to 12,000, so it simply doesn’t deliver enough fuel for 850 horsepower. So there’s a reasonable amount of engineering work to get to 850 hp.”

Wood adds that he and his engineering team have done enough research over the past few years to be sure that 850 hp is the limit of the current engine configuration if the durability requirements are to be maintained.

“Over the years we’ve tried to keep abreast of what might be possible,” Wood said. “We’ve run a couple of endurance tests recently for no better reason than to see if they could run a bit further. We’ve run a couple of tests to 1,400 miles without problems. In the background, we’ve been data-gathering over the past couple of years to learn more and more about the engine.

“We anticipated that these questions would inevitably come up, sooner or later. Can we make it more powerful, or can we make it last longer? Or both. So we’ve been trying to gather data on what is achievable and we’re comfortable that we can accommodate 850 horsepower, if it’s required. But I think that’s the limit of what we can sensibly do with the engine. I think it would be folly to try to do more than that.”

Cosworth has also been preparing for the switch to the Panoz DP01 in 2007. Wood and Cosworth first worked with Panoz when Tomas Scheckter raced the Chevrolet-badged Cosworth XG IRL engine in Panther Racing’s Panoz chassis. Despite minimal testing Scheckter was always fast with the Chevy/Cosworth V8 and won at Texas in June.

“We were first involved with Panoz when the IRL engine went in the Panoz car. We were introduced to Panoz then, and achieved some good results. We’ve really just started a dialogue with them in the last month or so about what the car will look like,” Wood commented. “We’ve had to be kind of brutal in some respects because we’ve had to say, you musn’t view this as a new engine installation. You have to see it as this is the engine you have install because the cost to change any aspect of the installation for our entire fleet of ninety-plus engines is so big.

“We looked at the cost of just changing the water inlet elbow if Panoz wanted it to come from a slightly different angle. You would have to pay all the tooling for a new casting plus the parts for ninety-three engines and the price was $15,000! So we’ve had to be very clear with Panoz that those kind of things are not in our budget. From their point of view, the engine installation is not a clean sheet of paper. They’ve got to design their car around this engine.

“Having said that, there will be things that can’t be accommodated and we’ll have to find a way to do it. But fundamentally there are hard points on the engine installation that have to be accommodated. And Panoz is entirely understanding about it.

“I think it will be a fine relationship,” Wood added. “It’s a bit further away for us so we’ll be on the phone more, but based on our experience so far with Panoz, it should be a good relationship.”

BTW, Champcar reduced the base power to 725 so as not to increase expense..

[elan 02]

Thanks Hoop, the feel of the "real quote" is what I loved so much about CC. it is just not like that any more with indycar.man I miss it

[Enjun Pullr]

More interesting reading for sure grungex, and forgive me for stepping back for a moment from your topic.

Hoop, you pasted an excerpt in post #7 from a July 3, 2010 article by Marshall Pruett with some quotes from Ulrich Baretzky. The entire article is linked below for those interested.

In that same article appears the following quote from Baretzky, discussing his GRE proposal:

“That's the genius thing about it. If you want to have it for a particular series, if you want to have something like 800 hp you can easily do that with a 2L version of the engine; if you need less a powerful Indy Lights engine, you can reduce the boost and lower the power and the torque and with the same engine."

So let's ignore every word written by benign internet posters and look at what Mr. Baretzky says.

Displacement: 2000 cc (122.05 cu. in.) [given]
Bore: 87mm maximum (3.425 in.) [given]
Stroke: 84.22 mm (3.114 in.) [calculated]
Bore/stroke ratio: 1.0344 [calculated]
Peak output: 800 HP [given]
Peak RPM: 9000 [projected by me for data calculation]
Peak torque: 466.84 ft/lbs. [calculated]
Mean Piston Speed: 4671 FPM @ 9,000 RPM [calculated]
BMEP: 576.81 psi [calculated]

Please point out any errors or ambiguity in that data so that I will correct any mistaken conclusions. Based directly on what Mr. Baretzky states he intends to build, that's what is going on the dyno.

Just to be clear, the following statement from the article is in Pruett's words, NOT Baretzky's:

"Durability was another design aspect the group worked towards, with 6000 km (3700 miles) between rebuilds as the target."

Hoop, we have been discussing three alternate 2 L turbos with varying specifications, so any ambiguity introduced to this point is my fault. I do not have dimensional specs for the Duratec RACE build, or the optimum bore and stroke dimensions which an engine builder would select for HIS Ecotec race build.

What I do see is a close similarity between the outline Mr. Baretzky has drawn, and the 2 L turbos referenced which have already been built and raced in other categories.

The initial post in this thread contained the following statement which I wrote:

"There are at least two existing alloy 2.0 L production engine blocks that can handle this stage of tuning, and they have already been proofed in competition in other categories. At WOT (wide open throttle) for 1,000 miles? Not yet, but the engines and the correct architecture exist."

We are talking about an engine for IndyCar, so to me that means the Indy 500 is the priority for all other criteria. IndyCar has stated their intention to limit horsepower to 575 for oval track competition. If a 4 cyl. turbo was proofed to those standards, I would consider that as an acceptable alternative.

IndyCar has further stated that the approximate targets for road course competition will be 650HP with an overtake assist to enable maximum output of 750 HP. There is no indication that the frequency of overtake assist applications will deviate from the current norm. Anybody's guess, but there will not likely be sustained periods of WOT operation at peak power output.

The figures above for Mr. Baretzky's concept engine are beyond the maximums required, even though he states they are achievable. That's a good thing, given the life expectancy he apparently has offered to Mr. Pruett.

What puzzles me is that the somewhat less stringent targets I suggested for existing race engines are viewed as unrealistic in comparison. The general tone of Mr. Baretzky's presentation, regarding cost control and manufacturer participation, does not suggest to me that exotic materials or manufacturing methods will utilized to enable his concept to produce such a powerful, durable result.

IF the existing AER, Duratec or Ecotec racing engines can meet the stated criteria, they will still fall short of Baretzky's promise. But they could be raced against a Honda V6.

As for the AER MZR-R, it has only recently demonstrated consistant reliability as a result of 2010 modifications. If that engine has been proofed at 575 HP WOT for 1,000 miles of running at Indy, no one has stepped up to claim it. Or 650 HP for road course competition, with occasional peaks of 750 HP. Thanks to it's light weight block, the AER may well prove to be a hand grenade when pushed beyond the racing it currently endures.

On the other hand, the Ecotec stock block was over-engineered to be a monster. The Olsbergs Duratec build has proven to exceed the requirements. The question about those two engines is whether they can meet the stated criteria with durability to exceed the 1,000 mile threshold.

Up to this point in the discussion, I don't see the red flag. And I don't see it when compared to Baretzky's criteria, or in any of the correspondence I have received from industry experts who have made preliminary examinations of the material restated here.

Link to Marshall Pruett's article of 7/3/10:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...racing-engine/

[Otto-Matic]

Enjun, maybe I missed this in the discussion, but who are the two curreent 2.0 L engines that already exists that you are reffering to?

[beachbum]

Interesting thread, particularly Hoop's input, which is spot on. Hoop covered "unobtanium" very well. When titanium was new and expensive, it was often given the moniker. But then titanium rods, values, and other hardware started getting cheaper and term was applied to the other very expensive materials or applications of materials, such as carbon fiber wheels, carbon fiber connecting rods, and exotic composite matrix materials.

The GRE concept has some positives, but also some issues. Production based engines aren't designed as load bearing structures, nor are they built for the ultimate in light weight. The result is the Delta Wing solution where additional structure is added to carry chassis loads. Instead of a properly stressed lightweight engine, you have a heavier engine that also needs a heavy (relative to nothing) chassis addition to take suspension loads. The Delta Wing tried to beat this by going to 4 cylinders rather than V6 or V8, but that doesn't gain all that much.

Making HP isn't the biggest issue. As pointed out, making HP and maintaining durability is the problem. A NASCAR engine has to last about 700 miles max. It may be production "based", but it is a pure race engine which allows pretty high piston speeds and loads. But if it had to last 1000 miles or 1500, the RPM limits would probably have to be scaled back as well as other loads such as peak BMEP.

I once worked on 4 cylinder motorcycle race engines. The parts life was very short as the HP levels went up. One factory sprint engine needed new pistons every day as the skirts would collapse. Another production based engine used up valves every couple hours in sprint racing when RPM limits were raised. The same engine in endurance racing would go for many hours if the RPM was dropped about 1000 RPM (from 12,700 to 11,500 - 12,000).

In the race engines, the internals were basically no different that you would find in a pure race engine. Special cranks, rods, pistons, values etc were the norm. The only "production" parts were the castings, and often they were special as well (even if it wasn't quite legal). But the internals were limited somewhat by the stock dimensions, so even if the internal parts cost just as much as a pure race engine, they weren't as sturdy or lived as long.

IMHO, trying to build a pure race engine from a production based platform ultimately doesn't save much beyond original design costs and doesn't result in a package that works as well as a pure race engine. It sounds good from a marketing standpoint, but the result isn't as good as it sounds on paper.

[Enjun Pullr]

beachbum, I wonder if your motorcycle engine was using inconel valves. That's one example of a material that was once considered as "unobtanium", but is now commonly used.

The rest of your general summary of this thread is pretty accurate, including this statement:

"IMHO, trying to build a pure race engine from a production based platform ultimately doesn't save much beyond original design costs and doesn't result in a package that works as well as a pure race engine. It sounds good from a marketing standpoint, but the result isn't as good as it sounds on paper."

What you are pointing out here, as Hoop has also raised, are some of the ideal design criteria. In my terms:

1) Intended use (power output levels)
2) Durability
3) Weight
4) Cost

That's fine to discuss how things look on paper, and what Baretzky has written down looks pretty good. No doubt that a bespoke engine is the straight line to meeting those objectives. Until you ask somebody to pay for it.

That's exactly where IndyCar is today, with no competitor to Honda. Any number of manufacturers could start a clean sheet design, follow through with manufacturing and development, and fund all the associated costs I laid out in previous posts. None have shown any interest in the job.

Looking at the problem with a more realistic point of view, the question was one of examing engines that had already been developed for racing applications. Does that mean some comprimises might have to be accepted?

Of course it does. Are they close enough to the ideal design criteria to be evaluated for practical application? In the case of the GM Ecotec and the Ford Duratec 2 liter turbos, and based solely on the development work and proof in competition that has already been accomplished, the answer is yes.

AER builds the Mazda/Ford based MZR. So they reinforce a stock block to handle the stress, and perhaps have to weld and re-machine the casting to accept the desired sleeve installation. Perhaps they find the block incapable of handling the stress without the addition of an exoskeleton.

So they build a motor, understand the requirements for durability, and it is as heavy as a stone. Fine, cast a bespoke MZR-R block with criteria far exceeding the stock block manufacture. Probably a cylinder head too. Big money, but it has already been spent. Enough development work has been done to meet their criteria. At ALMS power output levels for the Lola.

What about at peak output of 750 HP for road course racing in IndyCar? What about the rigidity of the lightweight block when it is subjected to some (optimally minimized) external chassis loading during 3 g cornering at Indianapolis? The AER was not designed for that criteria, nor for sustained WOT operation at 575 HP. Maybe it is an acceptable candidate, maybe not.

GM started a factory development program on the Ecotec in 2002. They couldn't kill the stock block and girdle. Upgraded sleeves, reinforced head studs, compression seals around the bores, fine. That's the 69 lb. block (with main saddle) you can buy off the shelf. Drag race criteria is 1500 HP output for 25 passes. With builds at the 500-600 HP level, the engine has raced full seasons in Formula Drift categories. You can drive one every day on the street tuned to 400 HP with no internal modifications required.

Back to post #1, I don't know that any builder has attempted to match the design criteria for IndyCar. So I asked them. Not the guy at the counter at Joe's machine shop, guys who build and race these engines. So we talk.

Is GM going to start a clean sheet program? Not likely. Might they fund adaptation and supply of an existing and relevant product, already developed? Seems more reasonable to me.

If that means a comprimise of accepting a suitable engine that is as heavy as the Honda V6, or even heavier, big freaking deal. Hoop can now make folly of that notion, without having any knowledge of the actual weights for comparison.

Same story for the Olsbergs MSE Ford Duratec. Only they encountered cooling difficulties with the cylinder head, so they cast their own. Better port design now too. And they found that the modifications required to the stock block are more economically resolved by casting their own. So they are doing that too, and the result will be a reduction in cost of the engine.

Is Ford developing a 750 HP race engine out of a 1.6 L EcoBoost for IndyCar? No, they are building 300 HP WRC engines. Same for BMW and Citroen. Different criteria, and no indication that they are working on anything that Indycar can use.

And again, is Ford more likely to fund adaptation and supply of an existing and relevant product which has already been developed? Seems more reasonable to me.

We'll find out as reasonable people continue the discussion. None of them have raised a red flag yet. Not in the real world.

[grungex]

Bogus misquote? It's exactly what I found when I searched for "Bruce Woods XFE". If you want to share information, then do so, but don't act like a pompous jerk when you do so -- you're not gaining any friends.

Where is the link to your quote?

That was a totally bogus misquote, lol...