Modguru is the name

[StarBellieAngel]

i'm just having a hard time believing this with no proof.

i looked up the honda F1 motors...

Spec
Honda RA005E
Displacement 3.0 litres
Configuration V10 naturally aspirated
Vee angle 90 degrees
Maximum power Over 900 ps
Maximum revs Over 18,500 rpm
Valve train 4 valves per cylinder, pneumatic valve system
Injection system Honda PGM-FI
Throttle system Electronic hydraulically-operated system
Ignition system Honda PGM-IG

and just after looking that, i don't understand how you can get your engine to handle revs that high. i'm guessing you just want to wow people. well, wow me by showing me cold hard facts. i'm not pulling out the BS yet, but you need to show me, cuz i'm just not buying it yet.

 

[reckedracing]

i'm just having a hard time believing this with no proof.

i looked up the honda F1 motors...

i think it was the F1 motors from the early 80's...

but damn, a 90 degree v10 spinning to 18K+

wow

 

[StarBellieAngel]

no no, that's 2005 spec. hence the '005' in there, 2004 spec was RA004E, though it does have the same specs as the 2005 one...

 

[Modguru]

Originally posted by Calesta+Mar 1 2005, 12:12 AM-->

You're changing the stroke geometry of the engine, right?

[post=467297]Quoted post[/post]​

Nope.

Lets start with a definition of what internal geometry is. If you take the engine's stroke, which is the distance between top dead center and bottom dead center, (the distance the piston travels), and then locate the length of the connecting rod, you have the two numbers necessary to calculate the rod length to stroke ratio, which is really what we're talking about as "internal geometry".
If you divide the rod length by the stroke, you get the rod length to stroke ratio. On the H23, the rod length is 141.5mm and the stroke is 95mm, so 141.5/ 95 = 1.49 to 1. The 1.6A engines have a rod length of 137mm and a stroke of 90mm, so the ratio is 1.52 to 1.
These numbers are only effected by these two deminsions, and changing one or both is the only way to affect a change. Porting, head gasket thickness, piston configuration, and aftermarket rods(if they're the same length as stock) all have no affect on "geometry" at all. If you change the stroke or the rod length, you can change the "geometry".
Now, I'll assume that an explanation of what this "geometry" has to do with anything. Several things are directly effected by geometry, piston speed, piston acceleration and decelleration, piston dwell time at TDC and BDC, piston side loads, cylinder loading, and bearing loads. Almost everything mentioned as "effected" plays a major role in the way the engine breathes(piston speed, acc., dec.), the combustion characteristics(again piston speed, etc. and dwell time), and friction / wear characteristics(piston side loads, cylinder loads, and bearing loads).
There are many opinions on this subject, but it's generally felt that the lower the ratio numerically, the worse the geometry. As far as I'm concerned 1.75 to 1 is the ideal rod length to stroke ratio, regardless of application, and any number going down numerically is not favorable. If you lengthen the rod relative to the crank and the ratio grows larger, the wear goes down as does the piston speed, but this will contribute to an engine having a very narrow useful torque range. If the number is between 1.8 and 1.7, it's workable.
Since most Honda's have ratios that are on the low side, I'm sure that you're wondering why and how. The main reason that the rod length is "short" is because a short rod allows a short block and a more compact package to put under ever lower hoods. Honda uses a small bore and when coupled with a stroke that's not terribly long, the rod angle is still "severe" but not as bad as it'd be if the piston were larger in diameter. Honda also uses an excellent method for lubricating the engines, and engineering and material control is outstanding, which allows the performance and longetivity we expect.
These ratios and the resultant geometry is also the reason that so many Honda engines push pistons through cylinder walls when "boosted".

StarBellieAngel@Mar 1 2005, 12:12 AM
i'm just having a hard time believing this with no proof. 

i looked up the honda F1 motors... 

Spec
Honda RA005E
Displacement  3.0 litres
Configuration  V10 naturally aspirated
Vee angle  90 degrees
Maximum power  Over 900 ps
Maximum revs  Over 18,500 rpm
Valve train  4 valves per cylinder, pneumatic valve system
Injection system  Honda PGM-FI
Throttle system  Electronic hydraulically-operated system
Ignition system  Honda PGM-IG

and just after looking that, i don't understand how you can get your engine to handle revs that high. i'm guessing you just want to wow people. well, wow me by showing me cold hard facts. i'm not pulling out the BS yet, but you need to show me, cuz i'm just not buying it yet.

[post=467298]Quoted post[/post]​

And thats a NA engine

I was referring the early 80's..

Revving that high is only possible with a short stroke engine.

Not only wow ppl, let US muscle drivers use foul language and just for the heck of it.

I will have the 10K rpm version ready this summer..

 

[b16coupe]

So why are you not going to change the geometry? If your rod stroke ratio is 1.49:1 and it sould idealy be 1.75, then why not destroke it to give a better rod stroke ratio.

 

[phunky.buddha]

Originally posted by Modguru+Feb 28 2005, 04:24 PM-->

Nope.

[post=467309]Quoted post[/post]​

I know all that already- I'm the LAST person on this site that would need lecturing about engine geometry and loading. I wanted to know if you were going to destroke the engine at all.

Modguru@Feb 28 2005, 04:24 PM
The 1.6A engines have a rod length of 137mm and a stroke of 90mm, so the ratio is 1.52 to 1.

[post=467309]Quoted post[/post]​

The B16A has a rod length of 134.36mm and a stroke of 77.0mm, resulting in a rod/stroke ratio of 1.745. You're thinking of the D16.

 

[reckedracing]

The B16A has a rod length of 134.36mm and a stroke of 77.0mm, resulting in a rod/stroke ratio of 1.745. You're thinking of the D16.

lol
calesta layin down the law y0...

10K is very possible, but lets see this 2.3 liter spin to even 15K

anyone know the rod:stroke on superbikes? ninja 600 or cbr 600?

 

[Seany-izzle]

look what the noob started.. lol

 

[K2e2vin]

i dont think youll get it that high, why? The honda engine you are using is off the shelf, while F1 engines are built from the ground up to rev high.

from what ive read in motorcycle forums, 2.0:1 is ideal for them.

btw, isnt the stroke in F1 cars around 50-60mm?

 

[jeffie7]

He could always go with a rebuilt worked over CBR motor.

18K shouldnt be too hard to hit.

 

[asmallsol]

you can't compare a b16 or an h22 to a "four bannger" used for F1 racing. There is millions of dollars put into r and d of that engine, and is unique to any other engine honda has ever put out (with exception to possibly previous years F1 engines) The b16 or the h22 were built to last long, get good fuel economy, be practical for everyday driving, ect. There is no way with a off the shelf engine that in the end, was build for economy, compare to a multimillion dollar f1 engine. I don't care if you do know f1 guys are not. Unless your designing a whole new engine from scratch (not using an h22 with a mediocore r/s ratio) your never going to see anything higher then 10-11k rpms, and even then, your engine will not last long at all. You have high hopes that will never be reached with an h22. The stroke is just too long to spin to those numbers. Remember, bikes and f1 cars can rev that high because there R/S ratio is about perfect, and there stroke is rediculiously small.


On a diffrent note, I have seen your sol linked a few times, on here, honda-tech, team sol, ect, mainly for the roll bar. You also have complete custom gauges correct with almost full digital read out? I must say very nice.

 

[posol]

honestly, im more curious to see what turbo is still going to be in its efficiency range at such boost level.

it would have to be stupid big, and won't spool till 10,000. lol

and when it hits- BAM, snap the del sol chassis in half

 

[corvetteguy]

Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Mar 1 2005, 08:40 AM
honestly, im more curious to see what turbo is still going to be in its efficiency range at such boost level.

it would have to be stupid big, and won't spool till 10,000. lol

and when it hits- BAM, snap the del sol chassis in half

[post=467529]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, i still say its a track car you building and not an everday driver...and in no way will pass emissions....and if that the case, you better leave that thing over in your neck in the woods because US muscle track cars run 9's all day long with little effort and break 8's very easliy...and these are cars weigh about 3500lbs full tank + person driving with no more then 700rwhp, compared to, what...a 2300lb with 1000whp that your trying to make....basically your making a highpower go cart...

 

[Modguru]

(Modguru has a lot of fun poking around in this forum.. Yall think its possible to rev that high with this block? I don't!!)


I've completely stringthend the chassis of the sol to handle 1200BHP.. But purely for road handling, not to actually handle this kind of power


A F1 V10 BMW engine can be bought new for €80.000,- and last year used but refurbished €15.000,-
It isn't millions were talking about.


@ Seany-izzle.. Not Noob, a noob does not know what to say to get this kind of reaction..

@ asmallsol
The 1980´s 1500BHP 4banger was off the shelf also..(1979 production BMW 2002 TII) So why couldn´t it be possible??

Thanks..

@pissedoffsol

Garrett hybrid turbo.. T3/T04E .58 to .63 and 50

Will spool up around 2300 to 2500rpm to 10.000rpm

================================================

The engine will be build to handle 10.000RPM.. Nothing more, nothing less.. I will be using N2O to get a quicker spool on the turbo. Intercooling and a little shot..


I'm building it to give 550 w/o nitrous and 650 with.. The engine will be heavily modified and structurally stringthened to handle these (10k) revs and power..


IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE 1200BHP WITH THIS ENGINE!!!!!


I was yanking your chains actually....

I'm admitting this because i think it'l otherwise grow out of proportion..

 

[K2e2vin]

i think a t3 hybrid will start choking/surging at that high of rpm. a gt40 or somewhere around there would be better.

 

[Modguru]

Originally posted by K2e2vin@Mar 1 2005, 05:00 PM
i think a t3 hybrid will start choking/surging at that high of rpm. a gt40 or somewhere around there would be better.

[post=467547]Quoted post[/post]​

Do you think? Havent ordered the turbo yet so...



What else?? .83 76 trim T350 and T04E 2,5" in and out with a 56 trim GT40

 

[posol]

a t3/t04e even with a 1.0 a/r will choke around 30psi, not support half the horsepower level you are after, and is frankly, just way too damn small.

and you're looking at a .63?

right........

and suddenly, we went from 1200 hp and 17000 rpms to 550 and 10,000 rpms?

550 and 10k is cake. off the shelf parts. done.
but you're still not going to make much power above 8.

the duration required on the cam to make power that high is ill-suited for turbo setups, and you're low end (under 6k) will be shit.

I think you're a lot of talk, and really don't know what you're doing-- engineer friends or not.

 

[corvetteguy]

Just alil something for you to aim for.....BTW..he was holding back.....as this was the semi Finals

US Muscle

 

[Modguru]

Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Mar 1 2005, 05:58 PM
a t3/t04e even with a 1.0 a/r will choke around 30psi, not support half the horsepower level you are after, and is frankly, just way too damn small.

and you're looking at a .63? 

right........

and suddenly, we went from 1200 hp and 17000 rpms to 550 and 10,000 rpms?

550 and 10k is cake.  off the shelf parts.  done.
but you're still not going to make much power above 8. 

the duration required on the cam to make power that high is ill-suited for turbo setups, and you're low end (under 6k) will be shit.

I think you're a lot of talk, and really don't know what you're doing-- engineer friends or not.

[post=467565]Quoted post[/post]​

If you've read my intitial posts.. You would have read my goal was 550.. The 1200BHP is BS..

These are the frends i am talking about..

See the car on the left?

http://s3.invisionfree.com/Go_Faster_Forum...p?showtopic=117


And I am talking about European US muscle..

Here in Europe ure "THE MAN" if you have a 10s streetlegal car

 

[phunky.buddha]