|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in : In article XnsA744769601979pogosupernews@ 46.165.242.91, says... The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines ran on methanol. So were the "sprint car Offys" running that 15:1 compression that was mentioned as one of the characteristics of the high output engine that was mentioned? Not sure what relevance that has to anything, but no, those engines would have been around 10:1. Bearing in mind that this was late 30's to early 50's, and production car engines would have been 6:1 or less. (also bearing in mind that Offys were built to order, and they would happily make any compression ratio you wanted). John There were several "generations" of "offy" engines, starting with the Miller designed engine originally built and sold as a marine engine.. It was a 2.47 liter (151 cu inch?) engine in the late twenties. It was put in a land speed record car in 1930. In 1933 Offenhauser bought the rights to the engine.The design was refined and enlarged, and twas sold to Meyer and Drake in 1946.. It was under Meyer and Drake, and later just Drake, that the "offy" ruled Indy. The "Indy Offy" engines were built in 4 displacements - 4.4L, 270 inch for Indy racing under AAA rules, 4.18L, 255 inch during the '30s, 4.13L, 252 cu inch under USAC rules, 2.75 L, 168 inch for Turbos at indy up until 1968, and 2.61L,159 inch for Indy Turbo engines since 1969. They also built a 1.59.liter,or 97 inch midget engine, and a 3.6L 220 inch Sprint car for both AAA and USAC rules. These were the "stock" Offies - there were many custom versions for other uses. The Offy engine began as a copy of a Peugeot Gran Prix engine from about 1913.. The original Miller 250 was a 10:1 Compression Ratio engine producing 250HP at 5200RPM Thw 1958 Low Tower 255 ran 15:1.and 325HP @6600RPM The 69 159 ran 8:1 and 820HP at 9500 RPM with a turbo. The '74 version DGS and Offy/Drakes ran 8:1 and 1000 HP at 10,000RPM with Turbos. ALL of the Indy engines ran on Methanol.. Virtually all sprint cars also ran Methanol,, as did almost all USAC Midgets. I don't think there was a gasoline powered offy competition engine after at least the fifties. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:30:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote: The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle. Fast, but could it make right turns? It raced in cart races, saw it run at Road America Elkhart Lake Wisconsin. So yes it turn right. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick woodinterior?
On 3/26/2017 5:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
good. No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and HP. There were NO laws governing HP. You said, I think one thing that has changed is that American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of their former selves. Now the performance is back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second quarters and tops out at 200? I said It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics. Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy. My comments above is how HP was returned to more than previous levels and pleasing the EPA. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:30:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote: The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle. Fast, but could it make right turns? Depends if you're looking at the front or the back. ;-) |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
"J. Clarke" wrote in
: Since the mention of Offenhausers was in the context of power per cubic inch on pump gasoline and the example used was an Offy with 15:1 compression it's very relevant that the example did not run on pump gas. OK, I must have missed that post. Anyway, yeah, the Offy was usually 12:1 or 15:1 on methanol, since you can run it real rich and there's no risk of detonation. Unless it was a turbo motor, in which case the static compression was much less (because the turbo more than makes up for it). But then, no gasoline engine will run 15:1 compression at full throttle on pump gas. You have to have some trickery to change the effective compression ratio, lower for full throttle/full power, higher for part throttle/economy. Or run 110 octane pump gas, and plan on fairly frequent rebuilds (some drag racers run that high). On pump gas, 12:1 is about the max. John |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:01:41 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in : Since the mention of Offenhausers was in the context of power per cubic inch on pump gasoline and the example used was an Offy with 15:1 compression it's very relevant that the example did not run on pump gas. OK, I must have missed that post. Anyway, yeah, the Offy was usually 12:1 or 15:1 on methanol, since you can run it real rich and there's no risk of detonation. Unless it was a turbo motor, in which case the static compression was much less (because the turbo more than makes up for it). But then, no gasoline engine will run 15:1 compression at full throttle on pump gas. You have to have some trickery to change the effective compression ratio, lower for full throttle/full power, higher for part throttle/economy. Or run 110 octane pump gas, and plan on fairly frequent rebuilds (some drag racers run that high). On pump gas, 12:1 is about the max. John Except with GDI - Mazda SkyActive is 14:1 |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@ 4ax.com: And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG before the Turbo Indy engines. Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well, so methanol was the way to go. That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas. With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track like a mile (or, of course, Indy). John (* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood) Most of the sanctioned tracks REQUIRED methanol by the sixties. USAC for sure requires Methanol - and most sprint cars today run either 360 or 410 cu inch V8s. - with a 305 inch class gaining ground. Upon checking the rule books, ALL USAC sprint and midget classes are limited to alcohol fuel - most classes Methanol only - some classes allow Ignite Ethanol or Methanol. NONE allow gasoline of ANY type.. This has been true for as long as I can remember. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@ 4ax.com: And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG before the Turbo Indy engines. Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well, so methanol was the way to go. But you have to carry twice as much to get the same distance between fueling stops. The other issue is that the flames are transparent so you can't see a car on fire. That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas. With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track like a mile (or, of course, Indy). John (* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood) |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:54:09 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:46:48 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@ 4ax.com: And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG before the Turbo Indy engines. Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well, so methanol was the way to go. That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas. With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track like a mile (or, of course, Indy). John (* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood) Most of the sanctioned tracks REQUIRED methanol by the sixties. USAC for sure requires Methanol - and most sprint cars today run either 360 or 410 cu inch V8s. - with a 305 inch class gaining ground. Upon checking the rule books, ALL USAC sprint and midget classes are limited to alcohol fuel - most classes Methanol only - some classes allow Ignite Ethanol or Methanol. NONE allow gasoline of ANY type.. This has been true for as long as I can remember. Further investigation reveals USAC made the switch to methanol in 1964/65 for sprint and Indy racing - at leat one USAC sprint class has switched exclusively to Ignite Red Ethanol over the last couple of years. Eddie Sachs' death in the '64 Indy put an end to gasoline. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
John McCoy writes:
The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick woodinterior?
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick woodinterior?
On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. vapor/gas |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick woodinterior?
On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote: On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. vapor/gas So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is fist evaporated? I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn. That is what we were taught in chemistry class. And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid, only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and provide fuel to the flame. IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process. Some elements/mistures change forms very quickly. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
In article x_mdnYUZ_P0mEUTFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote: On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. vapor/gas So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is fist evaporated? I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn. That is what we were taught in chemistry class. And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid, only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and provide fuel to the flame. IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process. A candle needs atmospheric oxygen. Nitro powder doesn't. Then there's nitro itself, which goes boom in liquid bulk. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick woodinterior?
On 3/27/2017 5:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article x_mdnYUZ_P0mEUTFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote: On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. vapor/gas So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is fist evaporated? I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn. That is what we were taught in chemistry class. And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid, only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and provide fuel to the flame. IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process. A candle needs atmospheric oxygen. Nitro powder doesn't. Understood but does the nitro not create oxygen during the transformation process? Then there's nitro itself, which goes boom in liquid bulk. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
In article 3q6dnTeTgpluEkTFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 5:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article x_mdnYUZ_P0mEUTFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote: On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. vapor/gas So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is fist evaporated? I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn. That is what we were taught in chemistry class. And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid, only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and provide fuel to the flame. IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process. A candle needs atmospheric oxygen. Nitro powder doesn't. Understood but does the nitro not create oxygen during the transformation process? It releases it, it doesn't consume it. Then there's nitro itself, which goes boom in liquid bulk. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:44 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7- , lcb11211@swbelldotnet says... On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote: On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. vapor/gas So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is fist evaporated? I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn. That is what we were taught in chemistry class. Not necessarily true. First of all, sublimation makes a vapour directly from a solid - no liquid pase required - and a solid that has it's own oxygenator included can burn without becoming a vapour - it does not need to aerosolize to mix with oxygen in order to burn. Most "High Explosives" work that way. Magnesium and Sodium do not turn to a vapour before burning either - nor does Lithium Any highly reactive element can "burn" from the solid state. And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid, only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and provide fuel to the flame. IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process. Some elements/mistures change forms very quickly. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:33:37 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first. You mean, like magnesium? |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659 : John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much more readily than methanol. It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: wrote in : On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659 : John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much more readily than methanol. It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat. True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode. John Except when it DOES go off, Gasoline makes a much bigger bang. Diesel fuel is a lot less volatile, but with a higher energy density - as a Fuel/Air bomb it is VERY impressive. |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: wrote in : On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659 : John McCoy writes: The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs a foam or CO2 extinquisher. As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode, but the vapor can. Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much more readily than methanol. It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat. True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode. Sure it does. More energy causes more sublimation, causes more energy... |
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
|
What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:02:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote: wrote in : On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: wrote in : On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy wrote: alcohol won't explode like gasoline The difference is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much more readily than methanol. It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat. True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode. Sure it does. More energy causes more sublimation, causes more energy... You lost the context. I've snipped some of the thread to make it more clear: the reason gasoline is prone to explode in crashes, and alcohol isn't, is that gasoline is more volatile than alcohol. In that context energy density has no relevance. OK, the energy release has nothing to do with it. OK, then... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter