Very, most of them have had engine transplants anyway, the old R7 lump taken out, and an R1 lump stuck in.

There was an original one on ebay a while back, and there was a mint OW01 and RC45 for sale too, about £20K I think.

We are wayyy off topic here LOL

The rules state ALL engines must run a restrictor. There is no alternative. It is to reduce speeds and, apparently, increase safety, which is also why the cars look silly.

With the restrictor you want to try and force as much air down it as possible, and so forced induction is the way to go. Most teams run some form of FI, although superchargers remain rare - probably because of their weight.

It's not at all silly - it's basic physics. Even a numpty can see that.

A lot of teams only have people on the team that like cars, but they don't know anything - even the post graduate members! They try to avoid lowering the compression ratio, or if they do they do it by fitting 2 - 5 head gaskets!!!! They seem to think that custom/low compression pistons will be expensive and so avoid them, but are then quite happy to make an entire carbon fibre chassis that saves 1kg over a space frame, and is only about 1% stiffer.

I still have an idea on how to improve most FSAE/Formula Student cars that I wasn't allowed to try when I was at Uni. Could provide in the region of 5% power/torque gains throughout the rev range, and still be perfectly legal. Plus with CNC it would be easy to make.

Quote from tristancliffe :

The rules state ALL engines must run a restrictor. There is no alternative. It is to reduce speeds and, apparently, increase safety, which is also why the cars look silly.

With the restrictor you want to try and force as much air down it as possible, and so forced induction is the way to go. Most teams run some form of FI, although superchargers remain rare - probably because of their weight.

It's not at all silly - it's basic physics. Even a numpty can see that.

A lot of teams only have people on the team that like cars, but they don't know anything - even the post graduate members! They try to avoid lowering the compression ratio, or if they do they do it by fitting 2 - 5 head gaskets!!!! They seem to think that custom/low compression pistons will be expensive and so avoid them, but are then quite happy to make an entire carbon fibre chassis that saves 1kg over a space frame, and is only about 1% stiffer.

I still have an idea on how to improve most FSAE/Formula Student cars that I wasn't allowed to try when I was at Uni. Could provide in the region of 5% power/torque gains throughout the rev range, and still be perfectly legal. Plus with CNC it would be easy to make.

Yeah, our team basically didn't touch the engine. (Kettering University) Just made our own intake and exhaust system and retuned it. Although there were plans to attempt to get some more powah out of the internals etc. the year that I left.

Quote from danowat :

FZR600 was never a stormer either, Yamaha didn't really pickup there game until the late 90's, when they released the R1 and the R6, both great bikes.

Even the R7 wasn't that good a road bike, infact, I can't think of one early Yahama superbike I'd want to own, bar the OW01 of course

the fzr was awesome, what were the others? suzuki? gsxf kwak zzr600 and honda cbr600 which was a good en

this is for sale at a place next to my work http://www.ps-pt.com/ID0000000049_Yamaha_FZR750R_OW01.aspx

Quote from andybarsblade :

this is for sale at a place next to my work http://www.ps-pt.com/ID0000000049_Yamaha_FZR750R_OW01.aspx

:jawdrop:

Holy crap! NEVER been used, only 2km on the clocks! If only I had £15k kicking about.

Quote from andybarsblade :

this is for sale at a place next to my work http://www.ps-pt.com/ID0000000049_Yamaha_FZR750R_OW01.aspx

:jawdrop: I thought it'd be more than that??

beefyman, you can buy the normal FZR750R OW01 with 8600miles on the clock on that site for £5995

my oh my! http://www.ps-pt.com/ID0000000080_Yamaha_YZF_R7_OW02.aspx

And it'll need a complete rebuild having just stood there. New tyres, new chain, new brake pads, strip and rebuild of engine and suspension... Yikes! I'd just find another used one and bag a better bike for less money.

Quote from tristancliffe :

And it'll need a complete rebuild having just stood there. New tyres, new chain, new brake pads, strip and rebuild of engine and suspension... Yikes! I'd just find another used one and bag a better bike for less money.

yeah but come on 2km, id just buy it and dry store the little baby, my fav bike of all time. when i found out they had one next door to my work i nearly messed myself then i went inside and saw they had 3 and a "new" one i was almost crying have you seen the ex Chris Vermeulen wsb? http://www.ps-pt.com/ID0000000 ... Super_Bike_Fireblade.aspx

Sure, with 2km (and thus no real history) it'd make a fine ornament. But as a machine the lack of use won't have done it any favours... And surely something like that is meant to be used not just looked at.

Quote from _r0b_ :

The only thing strange i can find about the MRT5 is that it runs on E-85 Ethanol which has an octane rating of 100-105 so this shouldn't give a performance penalty, should it?

Ethanol has lower energy density than normal unleaded petrol (34% less). Since E-85 means 85% of the component is ethanol, that's a big hit on efficiency.


Any power increases due to higher octane rating would be nullified by ethanol's lower energy density, and further affected by the compression ratio of the engine (high octane fuels benefit from high compression ratios).

Octane does not increase power. It might allow more compression/ignition advance, thus allowing a better burn, but high octane does not improve power.

As Sam says, the benefits of high compression and advanced ignition are outweighed by the lower energy density by quite some margin. And because it's a turbo it'll be comparatively low on compression.

MRT5 is a Formula SAE car
the F.SAE's rule said, the thingest part of in take manifold must < 20mm(petrol engine) or 19mm(E85 engine)
so, the engine power must be drop down.

Or maybe the optimum air:fuel ratio, and ambient density of fuelling means that the air restrictor has to be slightly smaller, rather than because it produces more power.

I'm curious to know just how much boost you can use on a turbo engine that uses the kind of compression ratios a stock bike engine has?

Having said that if your restricting the intake I'm guessing the affect of the turbo is more about negating that affect rather than actually gaining any real power over the stock set up?

If I remember correctly, from a previous thread on this incredibly low powered race car, the turbo is there to maximize torque throughout the rpm range, and a flatter torque curve would make the cars less difficult to drive.

There must be some rule on maximum boost, because this could compensate for the small intake size. The proper way to lower compression would be shorter piston rod length, but there are probably rules about any engine mods, since this is a spec class.

I never heard of the MRT5 class of race cars before LFS, but I'm in the USA. In the USA, go-karts would probably be the most popular form of cheap racing. Then other than modified street cars, it would be Formula Vee's, Formula Fords, Formula Mazda (not to be confused with the new Champ car Formula star Mazda's which are similar to the Reynard, but use Ford-Mazda Duratech 2.3 liter engines modified by Cosworth with 300hp). Caterhams, Aerial Atoms, and Radicals are also popular, but these get expensive.

For those who interested in the real-life car, visit this website: http://fsae.mcgill.ca/en/indexen.htm

The MRT series is built by a team at McGill University in Canada, to compete in the Formula SAE series (an educational racing series for colleges and universities, they have low-powered cars competing in motorkhana/autocross/autotest style events). Their 2007 entry was the MRT9. The car featured in LFS is MRT5, their 2002 entry. MRT stands for McGill Racing Team.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I still have an idea on how to improve most FSAE/Formula Student cars that I wasn't allowed to try when I was at Uni. Could provide in the region of 5% power/torque gains throughout the rev range, and still be perfectly legal. Plus with CNC it would be easy to make.

I would be a bit more carefull with that Tristan . Maybe it's true with the team at your university but especially in germany and austria there are a lot of teams with nice engine modifications. I'am not an engine pro.. not even close to but i know that the requirements for a FSAE engine are very special.

For example some dyno results from last years Formula Student Germany:

http://www.formulastudent.de/f ... SG07_Dyno_Results_1-9.jpg

Greets,
Warper

What are the axis? Presumably one is power in hp? What is the other side, the second y-axis? Is that meant to be torque (which would explain two curves per colour)? So why do they cross at ~9000rpm?

But that does not mean my suggestion would not work - all the cars I've seen in pictures could theoretically gain from it judging by the shape of the inlet system

Quote from tristancliffe :

What are the axis? Presumably one is power in hp? What is the other side, the second y-axis? Is that meant to be torque (which would explain two curves per colour)? So why do they cross at ~9000rpm?

But that does not mean my suggestion would not work - all the cars I've seen in pictures could theoretically gain from it judging by the shape of the inlet system

I just have to mention... that our team last year not just used 3d fluid simulations to test the best air intake shape but also tried 6 different hardware air intakes on the engine testing bay But who knows? :P

The axis are torque in Nm (left) and power in kW (right) - what do you think about that diagram - of course do they only use SI-units :P Whats wrong with the lines crossing at about 9,5k rpm?

For some reason I thought that kW and Nm crossed at @7k rpm, but it turns out it's at 9550rpm. My bad. They should at least use PS

Using 3D fluid simulations means nothing if they didn't test my system. The simulation can't predict the best way, or suggest new things, it can only report on what is tried. So they don't know anything other than what they tried. The engine when I was at uni was also simulated in CFD (and FEA), as well as Ricardo's software. But they didn't want to spend the time trying anything other than reasonably conventional techniques, including mine. Shame.

Quote from tristancliffe :

So they don't know anything other than what they tried.

Thats nothing but the truth of course - but i don't think that they testet only conventional techniques... because SAE cars are everything but not conventional race cars :P

But nonetheless, you could of course let me know your theory - maybe our engine guys are interested

BTW: That was a typical "tristan":

Quote from tristancliffe :

... but it turns out it's at 9550rpm ...

Graphical approximation is not enough for you You just calculated the intersection. To be "exactly" it is at 9549,30 rpm

Graphical approximations are fine, but I thought the crossover was at 7something rpm, and immediately thought 'eh-up, something's wrong there'. But it was just my memory, and my inexperience with nasty metric units of power and torque. I'll stick with hp and lbft and 5252

Ah lets have proper SI units:
Nm for torque
W for power
rad/s for engine angular velocity

Then by definition, the torque and power curves will cross at 1.

Or if you insist, use kW and they'll cross at 1000. Nice easy numbers.

Also if you use rpm and kW, the number is 1000*30/pi, so easy enough to calculate. Well, easier than lb ft and hp for sure.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Also if you use rpm and kW, the number is 1000*30/pi, so easy enough to calculate. Well, easier than lb ft and hp for sure.

Why is 30000/pi easier than 16500/pi (lb ft hp)?