May I make this a suggestion as a cover for the book
[image]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/r5lot/jesus-bible-14g.jpg[/image]
![http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/r5lot/jesus-bible-14g.jpg[/image]](http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/r5lot/jesus-bible-14g.jpg%5B/image%5D){kind=link}
You could call it " Behold. I am the K Series"
With all possible respect, you cannot possibly know how aggrieved I feel about the monstrously incompetant way Tuned Ks have been built by so many pupporting to know what they are doing. Further , you may know that my Uncle was responsible for the Elise concept and the brief for the engine that went with it - K, he like everyone from Rover who have contributed so much to the work I am doing, feel desperately wronged by the abuse heaped upon K not to mention the abuse inflicted upon it by so called “proffessional engine builders”
Without being funny Simon, having slogged my guts out developing engine components and then engine control strategies, working 12hour days for many weeks, having spent almost half the year abroad from my wife 2 years in succession, having concentrated on trying to make every change or validate every proposal and model every strategy I could possibly imagine in order to scrape occasional points finishes with an engine that was already as powerful as the championship winner, only to read in the press and hear from il-informed friends outside the business that the car was crap and maybe it was the engine (which in fact proved to be a race winner in another chassis) I would say I have an inkling of how upset you may be. In fact, by being directly involved I would say I have more right to be upset about things than you.
No matter how you may feel about it, history is littered with fantastic engines that failed to be remembered how individuals would have liked. The details may be different, but like it or not your situation is far from unique…especially in racing with short product cycles and it’s reliance on a single team to produce a good chassis and employ good drivers. For example this year we’ve have at least 3 ‘engine’ failures which were due directly to team components; one was a team coolant hose being rubbed through by a team heat shield, and 2 were due to team designed exhausts cracking and torching the loom, causing the engine to misfire and then stop (with smoke billowing out the back). As far as the outer world were concerned they were 3 engine failures. As a percentage of race starts that is a higher perceived failure rate than tuned K’s are to the number of K’s produced.
Mean the cranks, pistons, valves, cam, water pumps, oil pumps, liners, head casting, TB systems, flywheels, etc etc etc.
Book has a publisher, thankyou very much.
simon
Not sure what are you saying Simon, do you mean that you are not going ahead with these parts or that you have sold the designs on to a manufacturer ?
Bernard
No, all the short end parts are designed, and made for 6 different specs of engine, though there are on going designs and ideas, What I was trying to say was - what do I do with all this stuff when the book is out, and I can leave others to it? All my work, designs and new parts would have been offered FOC to the “PROs”?? - that WAS the idea. The trouble is that rather than see this work as an oppertunity many of those that might have used it have patently closed minds.simon
So you have produced only 11 engines this year but have part alrady made of 6 “types”, even though we know you still have nothing for your 2lt k series.
Have a check on dyno-plot, even cosworth are happy to put up graphs for engines that consumers are buying. Of course in your deluded world you are up there with the F1 engines so of course it should be just as secret as cutting edge F1 work.
Reading what you have written its just another attempt at obscurantism, rather than actually produce anything of note.
So who is your publisher? Or can we just add this to the long long list of very simple yet strangly unasnwered questions.
You don’t have to “offer it to the Pros”, just publish it and the masses will do it for themselves, you already have parts sorted and produced, preforming well so why not drop out the spec and the results and they can get on with it, or is it perhaps that nothing is finished, nothing is working and you have no results worth spit.
So when you quoted 91 KGs for a VVC engine earlier was that just short engine + clutch?
I am intersted as thats the last K series spec I had - VVC + vvi gearbox (not CR but lower final drive)
If you have a PG1 box knocking around would be interested in that weight also ??
The gearbox (according to my scales) weighs 39.2 kg.
[image]> http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i48/GeorgeLotus/DSC08173.jpg> [/image]
By the way, it�s a cr and available for sale.Simon,
When this VHPD I bought blows I will need you, as I decided to stick with the k-series.
I was looking to install a Renault V6, which can easily reach over 320 BHP N/A, torque of a bus and six speed gearbox, but the extra weight put me off. The Elise should be faster with a nice 265 BHP K-Series around the track.
Then Chris, you should understand EXACTLY where I am coming from.
simon
A lot of people have similar experience - ask Judd about the Nissan BTCC engine and I’ll be surprised if they don’t tell you how upset they were about losing the contract on their engine design that then went on to win multiple manufacturers championships under someone elses name.
But getting back my original point - Querying existing practices or wisdom is a good thing, but unless someone physically produces items that are actually better I think those being criticised have every right to eventually get upset. It all comes back to producing the goods. In this instance it isn’t just individual components, it has to be complete engines.
Then Chris, you should understand EXACTLY where I am coming from.
simon
A lot of people have similar experience - ask Judd about the Nissan BTCC engine and I’ll be surprised if they don’t tell you how upset they were about losing the contract on their engine design that then went on to win multiple manufacturers championships under someone elses name.
But getting back my original point - Querying existing practices or wisdom is a good thing, but unless someone physically produces items that are actually better I think those being criticised have every right to eventually get upset. It all comes back to producing the goods. In this instance it isn’t just individual components, it has to be complete engines.
There are plenty of complete engines out there running around - I’m just not advertising them. They will be seen in comparison to the competition in the test I have arranged.
simon
thats good news simon, which test has been arranged?
Just a bit of Audi info, as regards weight distribution…
When I had my car corner weighted at PLANS the overall distribution was 68% rear and 32% front, and that is pretty much the same distribution as a standard car…
John and Graham actually commented on how close to standard the weights were, and since the engine is the ‘other way round’ (i.e. inlets at the front), the engine is mounted lower and further forward, because there is no need for the exhausts to pass underneath it, as in K series instals…
Of course my car was then anything but standard, with many weight saving components
It is lighter again since those days, cos I keep cutting bits off it, or find excuses to fit lighter replacements…
e.g. hitting pit wall at Silverstone enabled me to go for one of Maddog’s lighter front clams - (VERY light, cos I asked him to make it that way).
I must get the car onto some scales with a full tank - come to think of it, why don’t we get a standard car, a honda and an audi, all with full tanks, on the same set of scales ??? (though not all at once )
Mike
PS Can anyone explain to me the significance of the mysterious term ‘power to weight ratio’ - it used to be important
38% front 62% rear is the figure lotus orginally used for both the S1 and the S2.
The data came from lotus cars media page and is also displayed on the sandsmuseum site as quoted from lotus media.
Anyway, it isn’t too far out from the 60/40 or 59/41 that some of the emerald cars are showing. Also, many of the cars that go to emerald have lightweight rear exhausts - mine saved 12kg - all that weight way back behind the rear axles, so that should lessen the rear bias.
38% front 62% rear is the figure lotus originally used for both the S1 and the S2.
Andrew
I have never seen Lotus quote those figure before??
I have - from Lotus - 59/41 for S1 Elise and 58/42 for Exige.
Came across this looking;
Given Mike’s figures of 68/32, I would say that is a serious handicap, and a clear example of why all these “conversions” upset the car’s basic handling. Everything, I have heard from both those who have raced against these conversions - the honda is scarcely better - and who have driven them lends support to the evidence here that a conversions weight will hurt all that is most essential to the Elise, or any well designed race car - it’s balance.
Lotus themselves are often quoted as saying that the ideal balance is 55/45.
simon [/quote]
Muck raking again Simon ? I suppose that particular duff bit of information from Mike must have really made your day mustn’t it ?
Have a look at the maths for various scenario’s
Car------Rear weight–Front weight–Total weight–Split R/F
K engine-461----------304------------765------------60.3/40.7
Now assume we install an Audi engine and add 40 kg 10 of which goes on the front wheels and 30 on the rear.
We get
Car------Rear weight–Front weight–Total weight–Split R/F
K engine-491----------314------------805------------61/40
Now if you dispute that assumption say we install an Audi engine and add 40 kg none of which goes on the front wheels and all on the rear.
We get.
Car------Rear weight–Front weight–Total weight–Split R/F
K engine-501----------304------------805------------62.2/37.8
Not happy with that ? Say we install an Audi engine and add 50 kg none of which goes on the front wheels and all on the rear.
We get.
Car------Rear weight–Front weight–Total weight–Split R/F
K engine-511----------304------------815------------62.7/37.3
You see what I’m saying ? Adding a whole 50 kg to the rear does not affect the split massively. I’m not sure how Plans arrived a Mike’s figures but they are plainly wrong. To get anywhere near 68/32 you would have to add 170 kg’s at the rear and have none of it appear on the front. Even you have to admit that engine conversions don’t add that much.
Bernard
It might be worth pointing out the following:
a) The figures I quoted are for production cars in the three models. From Lotus media and have been around for ages. However, I cannot attest to the validity of lotuses data - it changes with the wind sometimes.
b) There are a lot of ways to change the front/rear bias subtly - by adjusting the rake of a car (rear ride height higher than front), more weight will move to the front. Not by much, but certainly a bit. You can see the variation when a car is cornerweighted.
c) Assuming 60/40 for a standard K, unless the boot contained a couple of dismembered bodies, I can’t see an engine conversion changing it to 68/32. Maybe if the position of the engine was completely different - say a longitudinal mounted engine hanging out behind the rear axles, but surely not a transverse engine?
d) My car with light exhaust cornerweights at just on 60/40.
And just to add a Honda set of figures to the equation.
This was my car about a week after the conversion was completed. No idea what fuel was in it as all I got was the figures.
FL = 162
FR = 168.5
RL = 247
RR = 249
So a total of 826.5
This gives a Front/Rear weight distribution of 40/60 split.
Oh, and BTW, I have the full info (incl graphs) for all the cars above and they all have an aftermarket exhaust on them.
It might be worth pointing out the following:
a) The figures I quoted are for production cars in the three models. From Lotus media and have been around for ages. However, I cannot attest to the validity of lotuses data - it changes with the wind sometimes.
b) There are a lot of ways to change the front/rear bias subtly - by adjusting the rake of a car (rear ride height higher than front), more weight will move to the front. Not by much, but certainly a bit. You can see the variation when a car is cornerweighted.
c) Assuming 60/40 for a standard K, unless the boot contained a couple of dismembered bodies, I can’t see an engine conversion changing it to 68/32. Maybe if the position of the engine was completely different - say a longitudinal mounted engine hanging out behind the rear axles, but surely not a transverse engine?
d) My car with light exhaust cornerweights at just on 60/40.That’s the point - 68/32 are Mike’s figures…arn’t they?
simon
Yes they are, but can’t you understand that unless he has 6 sacks of cement directly above the rear wheels the figures are impossible to achieve ?
Bernard