Results 11 to 20 of 73
Thread: RRC vs S2000 NA
-
13th April 2012, 17:46 #11
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- Prague / Eastern Bohemia
- Posts
- 22,505
- Like
- 7,834
- Liked 11,152 Times in 4,427 Posts
Originally Posted by dimviiiStupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump
-
13th April 2012, 18:45 #12
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Athens
- Posts
- 25,095
- Like
- 9,922
- Liked 16,095 Times in 6,984 Posts
Originally Posted by Mirek
-
13th April 2012, 20:35 #13Originally Posted by RS
This is my estimation by the AFAIK what gearbox Ford and Mini are using http://www.xtrac.com/pdfs/633%20RALLY%20GEARBOX.pdf (also by searching (ctrl+F = WRC) in the latest news section is said that this is the case). It’s specified for a max engine torque of 450 Nm. I don’t know what the safety margin is but I don’t think the torque can be much higher. I don’t know either if the teams are allowed to replace the gear set for stronger ones due to the control gearbox but as I believe there can be three different final drives as in group R.
EDIT: OK, I forgot as usual a thing to mention is a RRC with a 30 mm restrictor means about 83% of the airflow compared to a 33 mm restrictor which means about 372 Nm torque for a RRC car.
On the M-Sport site it’s said that the RRC car have 360 Nm of torque so it’s quite close.“Don’t eat the yellow snow” Frank Zappa
-
13th April 2012, 21:25 #14Originally Posted by Mirek“Don’t eat the yellow snow” Frank Zappa
-
13th April 2012, 21:33 #15
Just 'coz it's hand-drawn on Paint : Didn't you notice the spray job
-
13th April 2012, 21:42 #16Originally Posted by SlowSon“Don’t eat the yellow snow” Frank Zappa
-
13th April 2012, 22:43 #17
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- Prague / Eastern Bohemia
- Posts
- 22,505
- Like
- 7,834
- Liked 11,152 Times in 4,427 Posts
Yes, I saw a power and torque chart of an S2000 car. But it was quite a long time a go so not very recent. This is just an estimation but I think it must be quite close to reality
Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump
-
14th April 2012, 09:26 #18
- Join Date
- Oct 2000
- Posts
- 8,821
- Like
- 2,088
- Liked 2,242 Times in 1,200 Posts
Originally Posted by OldF
Another question; if the Mini is struggling to hit it's "on paper" top speed, why not run a shorter gearbox and improve accelleration instead?
-
14th April 2012, 11:48 #19
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- Prague / Eastern Bohemia
- Posts
- 22,505
- Like
- 7,834
- Liked 11,152 Times in 4,427 Posts
It's not an issue of gearbox. What we spoke about is caused by the nature of restricted turbo engine. The rules say that the rpm limit is 8500. But that is useful only for variant with 33 mm restrictor. With 30 mm restrictor and same engine and turbo such high rpm are rather useless. With 30 mm restrictor the power peak is around 6000-6500 rpm and than the power start do decrease. If dimviii said the theoretical top speed 202 km/h at 8500 rpm it means 166 km/h at 7000 rpm and that sure isn't too long gearbox
Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump
-
14th April 2012, 13:10 #20
- Join Date
- Oct 2000
- Posts
- 8,821
- Like
- 2,088
- Liked 2,242 Times in 1,200 Posts
Ok!
Interesting thread. For me this formula is a mess. Too expensive compared to S2000 and slower (I know only by rules)
Roll on R4T!
Walk This Way - Aerosmith
Never Ending Song Titles - Words...