Engine selection: new advances V. tried and true

[jchurch]

We really don't spend that much time with it; and I'm sure this comment might bring back some more people telling me that we need to spend more, etc. I should say we don't WASTE time on it; we hit it hard in the first couple weeks of the fall semester. Basically my take on it is if you're not an incoming freshman, you've probably heard about it already. Like you said, if you're interested you'll find it on your own; otherwise, we can't force people to take interest. We just try to show them how valuable the program is, (I honestly think we've got a pretty good pitch) show them what they can learn through participation, and let them make their decision. Funny you mentioned this though; I was talking to another guy that's stuck with it with me, and he mentioned that we average about one person per year that actually stays with us...so hopefully we can use the capstone program they're running this year to convince the freshman that they need to get ready early.

[JuicedH22]

I think my biggest addition to this thread would be something that has already been implied. And that is development time. It takes a good amount of time to develope and run an engine. I think trying to do a drastic engine change in one school year is insane. Is it possible, yes.. but it will take a LOT of dedication starting right now to get it to the point where the engine is reliable and competitive.

To the point of 4cyl. vs. 2 or 1. I think it is partly a matter of choice. The singles and 2's have shown they can hang, but I dont think they have shown they are dominate (with maybe the exception of fuel economy). Yes, at Formula Student, 1 and 2 were singles (3,4, and 5 were 4cyl). And at East this year, I think the top 6-7 were ALL 4 bangers. So both are good motors, it really boils down to your engine development skills, and engineering judgment. The singles and 2s have great torque bands, but the 4cyl have the horsepower advantage (and yes, HP is important, not just tq)

What I like about the 4: great HP, and if you tune it well, good tq curve as well, its also cheap, and maintainable.

What I like about the aprilla: great possibilities, but moreso... DRY SUMP

[John Stimpson]

First off, I'm totally with keeping a car designable and buildable within the manpower and money constraints imposed on the team by other factors.

That said, with enough manpower, money and driver skill, performance is all about weight. Lighten your car up as MUCH as you possibly can.

Thus, engine choice follows simply: The lightest one you can find. Which of course, is a single.

[Chris Allbee]

I'm not going to go into the performance/weight and horsepower debate. Its been done to death and I think those of use who have learned something from this competition know that there is not a universally correct answer, just local optima that occur with each design package.

That said: OSU, you haven't made it to comp in how many years? We look for you guys every time...so if you haven't competed in a while...my question is are you still building a new car every year and making amazing design strides? If you are then you are wasting time and money. Finish building a damned car and to hell with the weight, power, and whatever else. Just focus on getting to the comp this year!

[Conor]

I stick by Chris's comment. It's great that you guys are debating the engine and what not, but you mentioned you've been on the team for three years and haven't made it to competition. With all due respect, put the argument to bed and get busy building. As our team found out, you learn a lot by building for the competition, but you learn far more by being there. Good luck this season.

[John Grego]

Not to brag...but to make a point.

In 2005 we ran a 600 and easly had the fastest car but broke, in 2006 we won California with a supercharged single, and in 2007 we won California with a v-twin.

Obviously it is possible to win in SAE with any engine package. We are also well known for our engine problems (blowin up in Detroit in 2006 and the milky oil).

The thing that we have to our advantage is set up, practice time and driver talent. Our drivers are practicing year round. We've done quite a bit of driving this summer, already. We spend a lot of time setting up the car as well. Its on the scales constantly.

Just to sum up...engine is important, but as long as it runs well you can have a fast car (this is, obviously, easier said than done). Of course design judges like innovation and things that haven't been tried, but thats a whole new can of worms. Drivers, suspension design, and set up are still winning the competition. If you have the fastest car but it has a junky set up and a driver with no practice you dont stand a chance.

PS. In 2005 we showed you can have the fastest car, break, and not win. Reliability is key.

[fade]

you mentioned that you have a limited budget and a small "committed" team so i think the engine choice is pretty obvious.

[Pete M]

Lightest engine available eh? Anyone know of a good 4-stroke leaf blower engine? Its performance is way less important than its weight, right?

[John Grego]

"The engine is just a spacer. If it doesn't work get another one." -Terry Satchel during our debriefing in Detroit in 2006

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

Doesnt matter what engine you have if your tune is dick. If you spend all year developeing an engine and dont get time to tune it...might as well run a leaf blower engine.