Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Re: Much as your point is to say, "You're wrong,"......

>you're actually reinforcing my point.

No, what I did was refute your assertion with fact. Those
facts did not register with you so I'm going to provide even
more facts in an attempt to show you how incorrect you are
with your assumptions about "new technology" and "computer
modeling"


>You've cited an example of an old guy working with old
>technology and getting good results, despite the fact that
>it's possible to archive the same thing using new technology
>and computer modeling."

LOL.

The FACT is that the "old guy" working with "old technology"
beat those using engine computer modeling technology and
beat many of them very badly. He did it because there is no
engine computer modeling software at the moment that can
beat or even come close to Joe Sherman's many years of
experience.

Lets take a look at what Joe Sherman was able to do in a
competition designed to produce a *streetable* pushrod small
block running on pump gas.

Engine Masters Annual 2003 Volume 6 No.1

Page 82:

Dyno results:

Average Torque: 482
Average Horsepower: 421.6
Peak HP: 604.1 @ 6,500 RPM
Peak Torque: 528 @ 5,100 RPM

"Building a small block Chevy in not rocket science but
tuning one to this level approaches aerospace finesse"

>In case you're confused, the small block V8 is ancient
>technology.

I'm not confused but you certainly are. Just because you
have something like dual overhead cams and four valves per
cylinder does not mean that a push rod, cam in block engine
is "ancient technology". If it was "ancient technology" then
can you explain how GM is able to produce *more power for
less money* from a push rod, cam in block engine than Lotus
was able to create with their state of the art 32 valve
dual overhead cam V8. Lotus designed the LT5 engine and it
was built by Mercury Marine. This subject is covered at
length in Dave McLellan's.(former chief engineer for the
Corverte) book. If Dave McLellan feels that the pushrod cam
in block Chevy V8 has plenty of development left in it, and
that it's by no means what you label "ancient technology"
why in the world would someone except your premise that
it is ?

Here is a link to Dave McLellan's superb book.

http://www.bentleypublishers.com/product.htm?code=gcmc


I'll leave you with one more example of someone who used the
pushrod cam in block Chevy V8 as the basis for his very
successful V12.

http://www.falconerengines.com/ryan_bio.htm

"The '80s also saw the first ever turbocharged V-6 at the
Indianapolis Motor Speedway, built by Falconer. In IMSA,
Ryan Falconer was a major contributor in the development of
Chevrolet's GTP corvette program. He provided 1200
horsepower for the Hendrick Motorsports Corvette in the form
of a 3-liter, single-turbocharged Chevy V-6. The engine was
a force to be reckoned with, competing against and beating
Europe's best factory-backed efforts from BMW, Porsche and
Jaguar"

http://www.corvette.co.uk/gtp.html

"Later at the hand of Ryan Falconer, no relation, peak
output was pushed to over 1100 bhp. Chevrolet thinking then
was that big engines were finished and that the V6 would
take over from the Small Block which would be out of
production by 1990. How wonderfully wrong they were !"

IMO the GTP Corvette won despite the handicap of having a
horrible Lola chassis and unreliable GM experimental
electronics. I personally watched this car being driven by
Serel Vandermerwere and talked to Serel about it at length
(over an hour) at Lime Rock Park, CT and at Riverside,CA.
The car could easily lap Porsche 962's. Thank god for
Porsche that GM never got serious because it would not have
been pretty.

>So, you've reinforced my point that regardless of technological
>advances, there will always be an element of art involved with
>audio engineering"

In my mind the "element of art" in regards to internal
combustion engines can be better stated as experience
and mechanical aptitude.

As far as audio is concerned, all I have is opinion and personal
observations and a technical forum like this does not seem to be
the place for my opinions or personal observations in regards to
audio.

Thanks for the opportunity to debate with you the merits of what or
what is not "obsolete technology" and what current engine modeling
software can and cannot do.


jon



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.