 |
 |
 HOME |
ARTICLES |
FORUMS |
COLUMNS |
GALLERY |
STORE |
SPONSORS |
MARKETPLACE |
CONTACT US |
BRIDGES
A COMMENTARY BY DOUG MEYERTuesday November 11th, 2008
A Veterans Day StoryI made a new friend the other day at my usual morning coffee BS session. This is 4 or 5 guys with too much BS built up who need to unload every morning or so, (you know how it goes). Talk revolves around the usual essential topics-motorcycles, politics, women, airplanes, you all know the routine. One day last week one of the guys, who is a pilot for a major airline and currently on medical leave, brought along his friend, Mike. At one point during the cross talk we learned that Mike was a pilot as well. Mike and his friend were talking about the vagaries of the FAA and their medical criteria to remain active. Mike mentioned a back surgery in his past and I asked about the scenario. He said it was from the last time he ejected from his jet. “Last time?” I queried. “Well yeah, I shot myself down that time”. “How many times were there?” “Three”, he says, “one over North Viet Nam, one nearly over Thailand, and the last one over Nevada. That time I was testing a missile at China Lake and the rocket motor malfunctioned and blew the right wing off my F-18. I went into an inverted flat spin, passed out from G-LOC and finally the plane broke up. I never regained consciousness, but when the nose came off my seat fired and the chute automatically deployed. They say I took one swing under the chute and hit the ground. After an induced coma and lots of surgeries, I woke up months later and thought it was the day of the flight.”
“Holy crap”, I say. “What about the others?” He said nothing specific about the first shoot down, (I guess it was “routine”)but on the second, he related that he had to run through the Thai jungle for nine days to avoid capture. “Jeeze,” I said, “you’re almost as bad a pilot as John McCain!”
“Not really,” Mike says, “I could just run faster”.
Later (today) I was discussing this with another of the guys. I asked if he knew about Mike’s story and he said, “No he’s just a golf buddy. It never came up”.
You just never know when you’re sitting next to an honest to God Hero, do you?
To all these guys and women, from my late Dad, who recorded the Japanese surrender on the Missouri, to Brian’s dad who at 91 is a Pearl Harbor survivor, to Chris’s dad, who was also at Pearl, and to our brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan, to all that have served for us, I say Thank You. We owe you everything.
Posted by Doug @ 9:32AM - Permalink - 0 Comments - 0 Trackbacks
Monday September 24th, 2007
I sold my 1098.... And here's whyThe speed at which my arms no longer need to support my weight is about 85 mph, clearly too fast for a casual ride and impossible to sustain for more than a couple minutes at a time. Given that the mirrors are non functional, a serious ticket is an eventual given. I needed to see my acupuncturist after my first 200 mi. ride, the nerves in my right shoulder were so irritated. At 170 mph, which on the ZX-12 is an exciting brief sprint, over before you know it, just a waypoint on the way to 200mph and almost too simple, the Ducati is a screaming adrenalin producing experience that requires careful inputs, a torso squeezing tuck and a fight against the slipstream.
When riding below 5000 rpm it is a bit of a snatchy, twitchy, frustrating experience that produces the occasional stalled engine when you least expect it. The stock ECU and mufflers required a level of (de)tuning that left me constantly wanting to just scream. A FI system like the one on the 1098 has the ability to deliver flawless part throttle performance, smooth tip-in and instant response. But these characteristics are clearly NOT available to the rider who wishes to retain the stock ECU and mufflers. It took repeated attempts to tune the engine, an updated ECU, and some trickyness with the 02 sensor to bring the engine to what I believe is an acceptable state of low speed smoothness. I know that by replacing the ECU with the "race" unit and adding the Termi's it would have been all good, but I did not believe that I should have to spend the additional $1200 to get it right. I don't blame Ducati, or the dealer, or his able technician for this. It is what it is, given that the physics and chemistry of internal combustion do not necessarily adhere to man's laws regarding low speed emissions. I would not be surprised if the always patient guys at Bend Euro Moto want me to never buy a Ducati again. There may be a bit of an attitude that runs something along the lines of "Hey it's a Ducati, it's perfect, it's mechanical artwork, who are you to say it should run better?" Well, I know how much better it can be, and it frustrated me.
Sorry guys.
Dan Kyle (Dan Kyle Racing in Seaside CA) has sussed out a method of fixing the horribly and consistently loose throttle cables which stem from a poor fitting throttle tube. He adds needle bearings that fit the bar to the throttle tube (a standard deal on AMA Superbikes). He also has figured out a way to adapt a 916 (I think) Power Commander to the O2 sensor-less Ducati race ECU to provide adequate tune-ability.
As I delivered it to the new owner yesterday, at the foot of the craggy mountains just east of Seattle where I suspect the riding will be all that could be desired, I was satisfied that it was almost perfect, and since he intends to install the aforementioned race ECU and Termi's, it soon will be about as perfect as a sport motorcycle can get.
I wish it could have worked out between us, the Ducati and me, but she was just too much of a pain in the ass when we weren't in the groove.
Posted by Doug @ 3:17PM - Permalink - 1 Comments - 0 Trackbacks
Monday February 5th, 2007
Torque - The question you didn't askI was doing a little reading the other night preparing to write this column about the relationship between horsepower and torque and as I looked at a copy of "THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE IN THEORY AND PRACTICE" by Charles F. Taylor, I was struck by what little reference there was to the topic of "horsepower". Horsepower, after all, is what we all apparently seek. We all want to know how much we can get, how much the other guy gets, and how can we get more! How can this most scholarly journal of engine design spend so few pages on such an important subject? The answer is that horsepower really isn't what the engine produces. It produces torque. Torque is what you feel. Torque is what turns the wheels. Torque is what lifts the front end in those long wonderful wheelies and torque is what engine builders really want to find when they design, fiddle and adjust. Horsepower is a measure of what you can do with that torque. Horsepower is the result of a calculation that takes the measured torque of an engine multiplied by time. Torque is a measure of force and horsepower is a measure of work. Work is what the force accomplishes as it is applied over time and distance. Torque is, by definition, the product of a force applied in a rotational motion or twisting force. Remember, there need not be motion for a force to exist. A good example of this is the torque exerted when you try and loosen a very tight nut. As you are pulling on the wrench you are exerting a force, but not until the nut moves has this torque resulted in work. If the wrench is one foot long and you are exerting a force of 50 pounds on the end, you are exerting 50 pound/feet of torque on the nut. The distance from the center to the point where the force is applied is called the moment arm. Now, visualize an engine with a flywheel whose diameter is one foot, and on this flywheel you hang a one-pound weight from the circumference of the flywheel. Then we arrange for this engine to make one power producing stroke from this position and when this happens, the engine produces sufficient force to lift this one-pound weight one foot. We would have seen a force of one foot/pound of work done by the crankshaft. But even though this force might have been applied, it was only when the weight moved (an event which took some amount of time) was work performed, and only then was the measure we call "horsepower" created. Horsepower was defined in the 17th century by James Watt (of steam engine fame) as the amount of work that one horse can (theoretically) produce. His definition of one horsepower was and is the amount of power necessary to lift 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute. He apparently observed that a horse could exert a pull of 150 pounds while moving at 2 1/2 miles per hour. This works out to 33,000 foot pounds per minute (550 ft/lb. per second). I don't know how he got the horse to do that, but that's what he decided to call it. In case you're curious, one horsepower is also 745 "Watts" of electrical energy
To determine the measure of horsepower produced by internal combustion engines the standard calculation is Torque x RPM divided by 5252. Torque is the force, RPM is the amount of time spent applying the force (revs PER MINUTE). Measured torque times RPM only gives force applied over time though, not "horsepower". To get horsepower a further calculation is necessary, one that incorporates the distance and the 5252 is the distance factor.
Let's go back to the flywheel. When the flywheel turns, it produces torque through its' entire revolution. Now, order to measure this force we have to have it act on something at some distance (radius) from the center of its rotation (it doesn't matter where). The moment arm is this radius and of course the time is the RPM. So, the work done (horsepower) is the product of the force (foot/lb.) times the distance traveled in one revolution which is the circumference of the circle (whose radius has become the length of the arm), times the number of times per minute this distance is traveled (RPM). This is convenient, because Watt's horsepower was determined to be 33,000 foot-pounds per minute. I hate to do this, but here I have to resort to showing the actual math. I can't think of any other way. It looks like this:
Force X Circumference X RPM
Horsepower= 33,000
You might remember from high school that the circumference of a circle is computed by the formula 2 Pi times the radius. You can then simplify the above by dividing both the top and bottom by 2 Pi (God help me, I've become my eighth grade math teacher!) and because 33,000 divided by 6.2832 = 5252, it then looks like this:
Force X Radius X RPM
Horsepower= 5252
Or: Torque x RPM
5252
At 5252 RPM, this number appears both above and below the dividing line. Because of this, 5252 rpm is where the horsepower and torque curves will always cross. (You have 5252 (rpm) divided by 5252 (foot-pounds per minute) which is a number (5252) divided by itself which equals 1. And since 1 times any number is the same number, at 5252 RPM all you have left is Horsepower = Torque.
That's not very exiting unfortunately, since the answer to the question has less to do with engines than grade school math.
The term brake horsepower or BHP comes from the device that was developed to measure horsepower, the Prony Brake. The Prony brake was predecessor to modern dynamometers that absorbed the power output of an engine and directed that output to a point that it could be measured. A band of friction material was wrapped around the rotating output of an engine. This band was then tightened as the throttle was opened and a specific RPM was maintained. At the point that the throttle was fully open and any further tightening of the band would slow the engine down, maximum power was being developed. The band had a beam attached to it that acted on a scale. The length of the beam was the arm and the scale measured the force. The resulting readout on the scale was the indicated torque. The above described calculations then gave indicated BHP.
If an engine were to run at a constant RPM, and it had been designed to run ONLY at that rpm, to produce it's maximum twisting force (torque) at that rpm, that rpm would then yield the maximum (and only) horsepower of the engine. Spin it faster and the power production would cease, spin it slower and the power would also cease. But, in the real world engines are designed to run through a range of speeds, to accelerate from low speeds to higher speeds.
Because they are designed to operate through a range, they necessarily work better at some central "band" of rpm. This is the region of "best torque" and the highest point is called "peak torque". As the engine is operated at an rpm less or more than it's optimum point of torque production, the horsepower will vary. This is primarily due to changes in "volumetric efficiency" or the tendency for the airflow into the cylinder to vary with RPM and to be best in a particular range. If the torque was constant and the rpm was increased, the horsepower would continue to increase. But there comes a point at which the increase in the rpm can't make up for the decrease in the torque due to the lessening of the engine's efficiency (it's moving away from the point at which it "works" best-peak torque). The point at which this happens is "peak power". Keep increasing the rpm and horsepower falls off because the torque is falling. Remember, the power is the result of torque times the rpm. If there is no torque, all the rpm in the world won't give you any power. This is why one of the most sought after characteristics of an engine is a broad torque curve. More torque kept higher in the rpm range gives more horsepower. So, what we're actually saying when we say an engine has a lot of horsepower is "It produces a lot of torque at a high rpm". The horsepower number is really just a way of quantifying this with one number. Having said all that, I still like the idea of horsepower. We learn from the time we're little- big numbers are better, and as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to horsepower you can never have too big a number. Next column, I'm going to talk about the relationship between stroke length and torque. I bet it is NOT what you think it is.
Posted by Doug @ 1:57PM - Permalink - 4 Comments - 0 Trackbacks
Thursday October 12th, 2006
Racin' is Racin'One thing that always strikes me is that "racin' is racin'", no matter if it's bikes, boats, planes or cars and a common trait is how much work and dedication it takes to be successful. Another is that, at it's core, it's not about the money (earned, not spent), it's about the competition.
Someone recently said on the board that running Bonneville "sure looked like a lot of work". Well, it is. It can be positively miserable, but oh, so rewarding. Over the years I've asked more than one guy who disappeared from the scene, "Why did you quit racing?" "It's just too hard, too much work" is something I've heard more than once. What does this have to do with Reno? Well, racing an Unlimited class airplane has got to be the hardest work in all of racing.
There are several classes at Reno. There are Sport Biplanes (like hot rodded Pitts Specials), Formula One's (very small, very sleek, limited to 200 cubic inches and running over 250 mph), T-6 ( kind of a "spec" class with WW2 North American T-6 Trainers - WAY loud), the Sport class features modern kit-built composit aircraft like Lancairs, Glasairs and one (or two) offs like the all carbon fiber "Nemisis". These planes run over 350 mph and do it with 500 to 800 cubic inch air cooled flat 6 or 8 cyl engines. The engines are real hot rods incorporating high compression, big turbos making big boost. Nitrous is not uncommon. The biggest and baddest, the Unlimiteds are, with few exceptions WW2 fighters, mostly P-51's, and the current aircraft of choice, the Hawker Sea Fury. Some feature clipped (shortened) wings, super streamlining, engine swaps, and again, all the usual hot rod tricks. These engines are all supercharged in their stock form so the biggest power increase comes from major boost increases - I've heard up to 70 pounds of boost. Unlimiteds race at up to 500 mph around a pear shaped course marked by pylons 50 ft tall. Judges stationed at each pylon look for "cuts" and can assess penalties.
The pilots are almost constantly turning and G loads are high.
Here's a taste of Reno Air Racing...........
The Unlimited of Choice, The Hawker Sea Fury. These planes were originally powered by a 2500 hp Bristol Centaurus 14 cylinder sleeve valve radial. Those engines are now quite rare so they are re-engined with a Wright R-3350 like this one shown here on the record holding Grumman Bearcat, The Rare Bear...
The R-3350 is an 18 cylinder radial that gave 2800 hp in its stock form. In the Rare Bear it is more like 4000 hp.
Every pilots favorite, the P-51 Mustang. This one, called Strega has clipped wings and tail, smaller canopy and much attention to detail streamlining.
Strega's power is a Rolls Merlin V-12, about 1700 hp stock, 3000 here.
This is an F2G-1D Super Corsair.
There were only 10 of these built, there are only a few left and this one started racing in the 50's. What sets it apart from the "normal" Corsairs is the engine, which is a Pratt & Whitney R-4360, 28 cylinder "corncob" engine (Most Corsairs were powered by 18 cylinder R-2800's.)
That's 4360 cubic inches, four rows of 7 cylinders, supercharged, 3000 hp. That's stock - this one's been breathed on.
The Super Corsair was getting a new set of plugs- Here they are, about $1000 worth.
Engines blow regularly. This is where the "Lot's of work and lot's of money spent" part comes in.
How's this for an expensive noise. This is the Rolls Merlin from a P-51. As you can see, the only thing holding the crankcase together are the heads and cylinders (called "banks" in Merlin -speak).
Think working on your bike is lot's of work? Try this for an overnight engine change. Be sure to bring your crane.
Pit rigs are a job in themselves.
Something to think about-
ALL the air required to cool the 3000 hp AIR COOLED R-3350 in this Sea Fury goes in that slot around the prop spinner. Remember, it's the air flow across the engine or through the radiator that counts. Look back at the size of the radiator scoop on the belly of the P-51, Strega.
A Sea Fury at speed- 450 mph
Nemisis- All carbon fiber, 600 hp -350 mph
Posted by Doug @ 11:29PM - Permalink - 0 Comments - 0 Trackbacks
Monday August 21st, 2006
Bonneville Field TripOf course, this readership is interested in what was up with the ZX-14's, as was I, so I have to tell you first that I was a bit disappointed. I guess it's understandable because the bike is so new to the party and preparing a serious bike, even a production bike, takes a lot of effort. I'm pretty sure right now that next year there will be at least ONE serious 14 there, however.
The two 14's on The Salt were both entered in the P-P 1650 class (that's Production Chassis, Production Engine, between 1351 and 1650 cc's on approved race gasoline).
Since the 14 is a 1352, it falls at the bottom edge of the class. It would be legal to make it bigger up to the class limit, (this is what was done to the Muzzy built 1340cc ZX-12 that gathered the record in the 1350 class in '01) but there was no time to do that, so both bikes were stock bore/stroke.
A black one was brought out by Dale Pestes from Gresham, Oregon. It was his first time on The Salt, but after speaking with him for a few minutes I realized he was a committed gearhead- 2 wheel, 4 wheel and, like me, in the air. The gearhead world is small- we had met last January at the Barrett-Jackson when I was there marketing the Columbia aircraft and hadn't realized each other's areas of interest. Dale's bike was absolutely box stock, except for safety items. He had to work his way up through the licensing process and ultimately ran 181 and change on the long course (5 miles). This is certainly credible for a first time out, especially since the salt was somewhat soft (soft salt can provide some rather new, interesting sensations on a bike moving over 180mph, but you get used to it.....)
Dale Pestes' new toy
Dale heads out on a licensing run
The other 14, a red one, was a little more prepared and entered by Falkner-Livingston racing and sponsored by Cycle Barn in Seattle. It was equipped with a Power Commander, and "modified" stock mufflers (mufflers must appear stock in the production class). If they did what I did, the mufflers had a hole through their length matching the size of the stock exit hole and the cats were removed. It didn't look to me like the head had been off and they verified that it had not. They have some salt experience and rider Mark Briant set a new 1650 PP record of 191.802 mph. The fastest mile they recorded during the week (according to the unofficial results) was a 192.198 avg through mile 4 on one of their qualifying runs. Gearing? Dunno. Even without making it bigger, or working the head, there are things that can be done and, like I say, they've been there before.
If they go back they'll be fast. 92 is fast for a proddy on soft salt.
The Falkner Livingston entry. Note the insulating blanket to keep fuel temps down.
Practicing The Tuck
On the opposite side of the motorcycle spectrum, Jon and Nancy Wennerburg, known around Maxton as Seldom Seen Slim racing, brought their Altered, Blown Fuel- Uh, 250 Ninja. Hey! They set a record! This little 250 (hp target-80 rwhp) features a tiny IHI turbo pumping 9.5 pounds of cold water intercooled boost. Nancy rode it 117.86 mph, I think.
Nancy's Ninja
Scott Guthrie Racing fielded Jason McVicar on one of Scott's turbo Busa's, which Jason rode without the fairing to 193 mph for an "open" class 1650 record. Both Jason and Scott among the most experienced riders on the salt.
I know some of you not schooled in the special requirements of Bonneville have a hard time with what may appear to be speeds that are lower than you might expect, so I'll try and explain just a bit. It's all about the AIR. Rick Gold of ERC Fuels, who supplies all the various grades of official Bonneville gasoline (and alky / nitro), aids the racers by posting the current atmospherics throughout the day to aid in tuning.
Here are the stats for Monday MORNING at 9:45 am.
Elevation: 4214 feet (actual ground level above sea level)
Barometer: 25.15 in hg
Relative Humidity: 23%
Air Temp: 84 F
Vapor pressure .215
Pressure Altitude: 4050 (actual altitude corrected for current baro up or down)
Density Altitude: 5139 feet (The effective altitude the engine "feels" as a result of all the atmospheric corrections added together)
Fuel Flow Correction -17.2% (this is how much LESS fuel you need to have flowing to give the same mixture as you would have at sea level on a standard day)
Air Factor: 82.8% (this means that you have only 82.8% of the air you would have at sea level.)
And finally, HP Correction: 1.218 (divide your dyno hp by this number to see what you're getting on this day under these atmospheric conditions.) For example, if you left home at the sea shore on a 59F day with a 29.92 baro and with 200 hp in the trailer, you now have 164.2 hp to work with on that morning, and by three in the afternoon when its 95F and The Salt is real slippery, you'll have even less.
Makes you wonder why we do this, doesn't it? Well, mostly because it's the only place you can. But also because it IS such a tough place, because it takes a real commitment and because it's a bitch and it's an accomplishment just to go there and come home with everything in one piece, body and machine.
Here are a few more images......
If I had built a Bonneville car it would be this: A 53 Studebaker, a timeless design before it's time.
Check the push car. These guys used to have a red '62 (?) Pontiac wagon push car that finaly turned to red rust dust.
This is Andy Green, the only man to go supersonic in the air AND on the earth..
For you Diesel Freaks- This is a 1472 C.I. V-16 16-92 Detroit Diesel (maybe it's bigger -bored and stroked, I don't know). It makes about 6000 pounds of torque at 3600 RPM. You'll notice is turbo'ed, intercooled, supercharged, and aftercooled. That's 4 rather large turbos blowing through 2 intercoolers into 2 8-92 roots type blowers then they blow through 2 aftercoolers. I'm guessing about 60-70 pounds of boost total. It pushes a Freightliner into the high two's. Nice.
See that mountain range way over on the left in the haze? Aim for that, it's 20 miles away.
Posted by Doug @ 11:14PM - Permalink - 1 Comments - 0 Trackbacks
Older Entries
THE AUTHOR
Doug Meyer has been working with race engines professionally and as a hobby for the past 45 years. He has built engines for everything from dragbikes and cars to outboard race boats, from the famous Can-Am sports cars and an F-1 car to motorcycle streamliners. He spent many years as a professional race team member and engine builder. Everything from nitrous to nitro, Doug's had his hands in it. He has set 16 Bonneville speed records...
Click here to continue
Click here to continue
RECENT ENTRIES
- A Veterans Day Story
- I sold my 1098.... And here's why
- Torque - The question you didn't ask
- Racin' is Racin'
- Bonneville Field Trip
ArchiveAll photographs by Doug Meyer unless otherwise noted