Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: RRC vs S2000 NA

  1. #11
    Armchair General Mirek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Prague / Eastern Bohemia
    Posts
    17,983
    Like
    3,451
    Liked 4,369 Times in 1,895 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by dimviii
    Sorry Mirek the right is 202km/h at limiter 8500rpm.This is claimed about Roches Mini.
    Doesn't mater if 202 or 206 But I can hardly see a stage where a car with 30 mm restrictor could get to 8500 rpm on 6th gear when peak power is around 6000-6500. With 30 mm restrictor it must be pretty dead at 8500.
    Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    17,012
    Like
    4,822
    Liked 6,979 Times in 3,256 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirek
    Doesn't mater if 202 or 206 But I can hardly see a stage where a car with 30 mm restrictor could get to 8500 rpm on 6th gear when peak power is around 6000-6500. With 30 mm restrictor it must be pretty dead at 8500.
    yes thats right,is going to be a long travel to reach limiter.

  3. #13
    Senior Member OldF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    1,988
    Like
    281
    Liked 289 Times in 123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RS
    I find it a bit strange that a car with twice the torque and the same chassis rules can't at least be on the same speed, even with 30bhp less? On a race circuit ok, but in rally I thought torque was king? Especially as the Mini's torque should be available across the whole rev range compared to a peaky S2000. Explain more Mirek!
    A RRC car (as M-Sport calls it, which is imo a good name for it to compare it with a WRC car, or SPR, super production car as Prodrive calls it) it’s official called “S2000-Rally: 1.6T engine with a 30mm restrictor” don’t have twice more torque compared to a S2000 NA car which have about 250 Nm torque.

    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

  4. #14
    Senior Member OldF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    1,988
    Like
    281
    Liked 289 Times in 123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirek
    Basically You don't need to know torque chart if You know power chart. It's all in with the benefit that power unlike torque doesn't change through gear ratios (not counting mechanical looses for simplification). What You need is that the area below power curve is as large as possible in rpm range You use. Than You don't need to think about torque chart.

    I made a very quick estimation how the situation could look here. Blue area is power available in S2000 2.0NA in usually used rpm range. Orange area is power available in S2000 1.6T in usually used rpm range. You can see that the higher torque of 1.6T virtually brings You benefit over the high-rewing 2.0NA only in so low rpm which are used in the 2.0NA S2000 for only a fraction of time. Mostly in first gear corners.

    It looks like at least that the S2000 curve is realistic because it’s not as “smooth” as the 1.6T curve is. Maybe you have some inside information?
    “Don’t eat the yellow snow” Frank Zappa

  5. #15
    Senior Member A FONDO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,050
    Like
    2,394
    Liked 305 Times in 201 Posts
    Just 'coz it's hand-drawn on Paint : Didn't you notice the spray job

  6. #16
    Senior Member OldF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    1,988
    Like
    281
    Liked 289 Times in 123 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowSon
    Just 'coz it's hand-drawn on Paint : Didn't you notice the spray job
    Just compare the S2000 curve to the S2000 1.6T curve and maybe you also learn something.
    “Don’t eat the yellow snow” Frank Zappa

  7. #17
    Armchair General Mirek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Prague / Eastern Bohemia
    Posts
    17,983
    Like
    3,451
    Liked 4,369 Times in 1,895 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

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    6,716
    Like
    386
    Liked 762 Times in 441 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by OldF
    it’s official called “S2000-Rally: 1.6T engine with a 30mm restrictor”
    Snappy.

    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?

  9. #19
    Armchair General Mirek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Prague / Eastern Bohemia
    Posts
    17,983
    Like
    3,451
    Liked 4,369 Times in 1,895 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

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    6,716
    Like
    386
    Liked 762 Times in 441 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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •