Batass

Well that pretty much sums up my curiosity.

Charged350

iTrader: (1)

much piping i guess..blower is more simple...

blue82_z28

i thought it was against the rules.

Batass

I dont think simplicity has anything to do with it. Im sure its in the rulebook, but I would think that turbos would be easier and possibly safer.

Apeiron

What advantage would a turbo have over a positive displacement blower for drag racing?

383backinblack

there are a couple of reasons.......

first off, its against the rules.....they are specified to run a 14-71 blower i believe, outright.

secondly......is it possible it would work better? its possible, but not that plausible....it would take decades of development to produce a turbocharger that could stand up to nitromethane......

the biggest problem is the theoretical flame temp of nitromethane is over 4300degrees......gasoline is about 2400 degrees......there's approximately triple the heat in the exhaust, and also......because the nitro doesnt completely combust in the cylinder, it exits the chamber while its still burning (the white flame you see coming out of the headers in top fuel/FC) so not only is it that hot, but it its still burning VIOLENTLY inside the exhaust as it would travel through the turbo.

there are alot of engineering obstacles that would need to be overcome, super, super heat resistant materials for both the housing, turbine, shaft, bearings etc......AND you have to figure out how to lubricate it at that temperature.

Because of those problems, it would be nearly impossible for the temperature of the cold side of the turbo to stay even remotely cool.......i conjecture that the air intake temps would be alot higher even if it worked.

they'd have to be able to stand that heat, from start-up, burnout, staging, and the pass......whereas the blower never sees any of that heat.

I'm not saying it won't happen someday, but right now its not that feasible.

I had this exact same debate with a buddy of mine at a dunkin donuts one nite with about 20 other people watching us verbally thrash each other until it got light out, it was like 5am haha.

Batass

I think you nailed it there. I really didnt think about the super hot exhaust. It might be possible if you had a turbo that separated the impeller from the turbine with a long shaft.
But, if you ran turbos, would you have to run nitromethane to make the same power?

383backinblack

ya, read up on how nitromethane works......its the only thing that makes 8,000hp possible in an engine that size.

those roots blowers make over 50psi as is too.

nitromethane has a TON of oxygen in its own chemical makeup, so you can burn about 8.5 times as much of it in the cylinder as you could with gasoline (with the same volume of air) so you don't really have to add alot more air to make more power, only a small amount of air, and alot mroe fuel.

you're able to make the much power because you can burn so much fuel on each combustion event.

Batass

Right I understand that, but I was reading something about a funny car driver that said they could hit the 4s if they were allowed to rev their engines longer. Arent they pretty much the same engines?Just methanol only? Wouldnt you be able to run more boost with turbos vs a blower? Maybe with methanol you just dont have any high intake temps issues that you do with gas.
I know those blowers pump out a lot, something like 400hp just to drive them. But I would think with the same amount of engineering time put into a turbo, you could do more.

I know they already have traction issues, but Im not trying to get into that.

383backinblack

the whole run is only 4 seconds long, so any gain you get is going to be marginalized, at least relative to what we're used to seeing. you're gonna drop a second.......

if the could gear them differently? then the engine would rev higher, but that would change the launch......and every RPM counts, the motor only turns over like 400 and something time times i believe during the entire pass.......plus at 8000hp at 10,000rpm, the stresses are unreal on the reciprocating parts, each rpm beyond that increases it drastically

there are alot of reasons, but if it was feasible cost and engineering wise, someone would be doing it on an exhibition car right now.......i remember hearing about someone having tried it awhile back, but i dont know what happened........the exhaust pressure/temperature is the biggest obstacle

ryan91rs

iTrader: (1)

I thought I saw Force was driving a turbo car? Maybe a different class?

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

That definatly was NOT TF/FC, if it was Force.

Batass

I see, I havent dont much research on it, but the fastest turbo car I saw in person was a twin turbo mustang up in Canada that was running low 6's. He got the car tuned for the track and said hed hit 5 on the last run, but he lost traction. I was disappointed. Im sure there have been faster ones.

383backinblack

going from 6's to 5's is probably like 2000-3000hp difference lol

Batass

Maybe 2000 going from a high 6 to a mid 5. He was running low 6s, real close to a 5. Car was nuts. Real nice guy too. Had an ice box intercooler sitting in the passenger area.

Going from a 5.9 to a 4.9 might take 3000hp more, but if you had a big motor and some money behind you, I wonder if you could break into the 4s.
Way over my head though, just stray thoughts.

Sonix

iTrader: (1)

I think Apeiron may have had a point in the beginning there... A roots blower gives the LAUNCH, which makes the racing fun. A turbo typically has a much softer launch (even with all the tricks), but makes up more power later on. A slower time at higher speed isn't as much fun

Batass

Your right the launch is sweet. I dont know if I've ever seen one have problems at the launch, generally its halfway down the track, but Im sure its happened.

Its just not making sense to me. How much work they mustve put into those motors to work with those blowers. I never see anyone running a small block with a roots blower making 800hp. Many people with turbos making almost double that.
The fanfare would surely drop if they used turbos too.

Apeiron is right though, with their limitations they have now, turbos would do nothing.

The nitro burning turbine is another killer. I dont really care about turbos, I just admire their efficiency. Blowers are more fun.

joshh44

is this the mustang you saw up in Canada? this is a Twin Turbo. im not to sure what the time is. i cant remember.
since i live up in Canada haha we might have see the same mustang if this was it.

http://www.albernidragracing.com/website/images/111.jpg

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

the track prep has to be realllly good to have those cars hook up with full power. they easilly blow off the tires if you dont watch what your doing and how much power your putting out.

What i'm more curious about is what if they lifted the 500 cube limit and allowed 600+ cube engines? could they make another 2000 hp and shoot for bottom 4's? 3.99 maybe? I dont think it could physically happen with the tires we have today and the parts we have made. I think that would actually be tooo much power and no tire we make will hook on that setup

joshh44

more rubber on the road? haha would the human body be able to hold up to that kind of acceration? your face would be behind your head!

Batass

Most people pass out at 7gs IIRC. You can train yourself for 9. I used to be an F-16 mechanic.

No that wasnt the mustang. The one I saw was silver, and had the turbos right in the front grill. It was the old late 60's body style. Somewhere in Ontario. Im thinking it was Quebec dragway??? Could be wrong. I love Canada!!!! This was last summer.

Hell yeah more rubber. 5ft wide tires. I wonder if the rules are the only thing holding them back. I heard something about some jet cars back in the day that did 3 seconds but they were banned.

joshh44

YAY FOR CANADA!
i thikn that camaro did 8 or 9 seconds if i remeber hard enough. but i do remember that mustang was street legal!! i think he had to turn the boost down to the lowest or it would be way to crazy for the streets.

383backinblack

those guys actually pull more instantaneous g's than that on the launch, but its only for an instant so it hasn't caused much for problems.......dropping another second though, i wouldnt be suprised if it did.

JoBy

The limit for the human body is still not reached with todays Top-Fuel.

http://www.dragracingonline.com/features/miller_b1.html

In 1979 Sammy Miller broke the 300 mph barrier in Europe, at Santa Pod.

His first three-second run occured at Santa Pod Raceway in Bedfordshire, England in 1980 where he ran a 3.90. (As a point of comparison, the lowest NHRA Top Fuel e.t. that year was a 5.68.)

In 1981, he set the world ice speed and e.t. record with a 1.67 at 247-mph in the eighth-mile.

In 1984 Sammy recorded a pass of 3.58 at Santa Pod Raceway which still stands as the absolute ET record anywhere on the planet.



By 1980, he held 30 United States state and track records in elapsed time and mile per hour.
He holds the quickest elapsed time and mile per hour standards in the following countries:
(1/4 mile)
CANADA (4.26/331)
DENMARK (4.97/267)
ENGLAND (3.58/386)
SWEDEN (4.10/328)
MEXICO (4.95/274)

**BEST SPEED - 386.26 at Santa Pod (England), although Miller did run 396-mph at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah over a quarter-mile from a standing start.

BEST E.T. - 3.583

(1/8 mile)
BELGIUM (3.13/211)
HOLLAND (1.606/307)
ENGLAND (2.00/312)
SWEDEN (2.27/297)
GERMANY (2.49/259)
CORSICA (2.56/238)

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

I have pictures of that car, and it wasn't 5s, 6s he hit though IIRC, From Toronto Motorsports Park (Cayuga Dragway), and from last year's Performance World Car show.

The car is imacullate, more than just a race car, it's a show car, that works.

The problem that TF/FC is esxperiancing right now is chassis failures. Many people belive it's due to the new SFI rules that require the chassis to be made from crome-moly, and then tempered. Many of these failures also seem to be under the driver seat in a "torque box", since this area has VERY higfh forces against it. Luckiliy most of these get caught before anything drastic happens.
The ones that are not apparant until it's too late seem to fail just in front of the engine, and the chassis splits.
John Force experianced this last year, though it has also been said that it was a result from the other problem that TF/FC and TF dragster are experiancing and that is the tire literally tearing itself apart at speed. The centrifigul forces on the tire tread are so high that it can't hold together, explodes and then causes more problems. Like that the already stressed chassis coming apart, when those forces instantly change from a loss of traction. The chassis will be flexed one way and when the tire explodes, the chassis is then stressed in the complete opposite way which will make even the strongest areas break.
There have been more than a few discussions I have read that people feel that going back to MS chassis would make for a safer chassis, as it would flex and absorb the forces better than a stiff, brittle crome-moly chassis. It would be heavier as well, which some people see as a benefit as well. Some people want to slow th ecars down for safety, some just want to see a more forgiving chassis. I think the best suggestion so far is to use some indy car (and others) technology and build a break away driver cockpit, that in the event of a chassis failure the driver cockpit would then break away and leave the heavier and potentially explosive other parts of the car to move away from the driver.

At this point TF/FC and TF/D are at about thier limits of chassis and tire design, so going any quicker will just be putting more drivers in danger of being killed.

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Here is the car, from last years CSCN (Canadian Street Car Nationals):


here is another view:


Both above pics are from the CSCN website, these are not the pics I have that I was talking about. I have some under hood pics, and pit pics.

Batass

Thats it! That guy did an amazing job. There was another car that was running with it, didnt do as well, I cant remember what it was.

Toronto Motorsports. That was it. Did you catch "ozzy" singing? Lol.
That was some good reading there, too.

Do you have any idea what his combo is? How hard is he pushing it?

jerryd87

iTrader: (2)

i remember reading on why they cant run faster then they do(was in one of the mags ill try to find it a funny car driver mentioned it) 1)they dont have tires that can withstand faster then 330 mphs, 2)there is a nhra mandated rev limit of 8450 but the engines can easily rev to 9400 or so, 3) they cant make enough downforce to go very far into the 3 second range

Shagwell

turbos = spool time, of some sort. Roots blowers are instant boost. An overdriven blower causes the engine to surge at idle because it's trying to make boost, but since the butterflies are closed, it doesn't have enough air. - Our 1471 hi-helix is turning 10% up(comparitively slow) and I've seen 25psi in less than .01 seconds after letting go of the transbrake. When I set the t-brake, the air servo cracks the butterflies just enough to level out the engine speed(about 1500), the throttle goes full open the instant I let go. Top fuel cars turn the blowers around 50% up and, IIRC, they run an 1871(maybe bigger).
As 383backinblack pointed out, the exhaust on a nitro burner is far too violent for turbos. I'm sure you guys have heard the sound of unburnt fuel igniting in a turbine housing before, not very pretty. -Anyone see Tony Pedregon's burn-out mishap last season? The exhaust litterally blowing a guys clothes off? It's not just the temps, but the burn cycle.
The engines in top fuel and top alcohol are rev limited by the NHRA/IHRA. Another safety. They could make more power at higher rpm, but they're twice as likely to have a catastophic failure. - They do make much more power off the line than what the cars/tires/tracks can handle, which is why they run a centrifical clutch. One of the toughest jobs in tuning the car is setting the clutch correctly. Different discs/steals react differenetly to one another, and all the timers & weights have to be set accordingly. Last I knew, most guys don't actually get the clutch locked-up till 1/8 mile or better.

As for the 3 second "jet" cars, they were hydrogen combustion powered. They were banned, due to safety. - You're allowing pressure to build inside a chamber, then igniting it to propel you. The longer you let pressure build, the more violent the explosion, thus the faster you go. Problem is, the stuff is too unstable to predict, thus it could(and did) easily cause an explosion too vilolent for the chanber to handle, thus killing the driver and anyone nearby.

I too agree on the chassis issues. Moly has a much higher fatigue rate than ms. It's "stronger" in its make-up, but that just means it's more brittle. Anyone else see the nasty prostock crash a couple seasons back? Guy crossed the center line, t-punched the wall, then the other car hit him? Moly - it took the initial hit(the wall) but dicintegrated on the second hit(the other car), if that had been oposite lanes, it would have been the driver's side that dicintegrated....NHRA/IHRA are the only sanctioning bodies that require moly for higher speeds, all others require ms for higher speeds. Our 10.5 outlaw car won't technically certify to the speeds we run because it's ms. I won't run moly. In a full tube chassis car, it's only 100#'s lighter, since I have to weigh 3000#'s anyway, I'd rather run what I feel to be a safer.

Batass

Interesting. I didnt hear about that burn out incident. Ill have to look it up.

Do you think its possible to make just as much power or more with turbos running methanol?

Funny cars make roughly what 3-4000hp? Pretty much the same engines? Just methanol? Or is there something I am completely missing here-that these blowers are somehow superior to turbos?

Getting away from the track here, just talking about pure power.

383backinblack

its an argument of whats superior, its a matter of how they function.....the turbo has to be on the business end of the engine, the blower doesnt.

FC engines are nitro as well, I forget if they have a different fuel concentration rule or not, but its almost the same thing......in IHRA funny cars used to be JUST methanol, there was talk of going back to nitro, but i dont know if it ever happened.

like was said already......the answer is NO, because its not about boost its about the fuel.

nitromethane power >>>>>> methanol power

Batass

Ok, just one more question, then I'll stop thinking about it.

Nitro is a pro-detonant. So the amount of boost has a limit?
Couldnt you run much more boost with methanol than with nitro?

If you could keep the intake air reasonably cool couldnt you technically run enough boost to match a nitro burning engine?

I cant remember which one it is, if nitro is soluble in gasoline or alcohol. Could you mix a little to the edge of dangerous exhaust in the turbine/ burning turbine?

If your getting irritated here, feel free to not to answer.

Apeiron

Nitromethane has a higher heat of vaporization than methanol so it more effectively cools the intake charge, and has a stoichiometric ratio of 1.7:1 compared to methanol's 6:1 so you can burn 3.5 times more nitromethane for the same volume of air as methanol. On top of that, at high temperatures nitromethane will decompose without an additional oxidizer, so adding fuel in excess of stoich continues to provide an increase in power.

Have a look at http://www.smokemup.com/tech/fuels.php for an interesting comparison of the energy in gasoline, methanol and nitromethane.

383backinblack

im not getting irritated, it just seems like you're failing to understand why nitro makes more power

like Aperion just said, you can burn MORE of it for the same volume of air in the cylinder (even beyond stoich) so if you can make 100lbs of boost with methanol, you could also make 100lbs of boost with nitro (and you'd still be burning more than 3x as much fuel per combustion event)

no matter what you do, the nitro engine will make more power

its like comparing a sparkler, to dynamite....or c4

power is produced by burning fuel........not air. but air is needed to support combustion.......you need WAY less air to support combustion of nitro, so you can burn WAY more of it.

say you have 1oz of air.......and with that oz you can burn 0.14oz of methanol

you can also burn .625oz of nitromethane.......see the issue?

bl85c

iTrader: (2)

Nitromethane is a monopropellant I.E. it buns by itself. In the early days of the space program it was the fuel of choice because of the simplicity of packaging that goes with a monopropellant fuel. Adding additional oxygen into the mix speeds up the process and increases power yeild to a point. Nitromethane is a wonderful thing.

On a different note, I've seen a turbodiesel dragster here and there. Not verry common because the aftermarket just hasn't advanced into diesel technology much yet. Except gale banks, he knows his s**t. I'd like to see more interest in the diesel market because it seems to me that a fuel that has no detonation limit has virtually infinite power potental. I've heard of sequential turbo setups pushing 100+ psi on diesel . And no chemical intercooling.

Sonix

iTrader: (1)

Yea, all the fun of racing diesel engines... The fun of a 4000RPM redline, whoo.... Sorry, I just think of a diesel engine as like a school bus, tractor, or a SHOVEL. They are a tool to accomplish work. Not fun, like gasoline or other spark ignited engines

Apeiron

So you didn't know that diesels have raced in the Indy 500 then?

Sonix

iTrader: (1)

hahahahahaahah! Sure DIDN'T! I can't imagine them being very competitive, while staying in the rules (displacement, RPM, boost)

I still think they are more of a shovel then a deck of cards. (one does work, one does play)

Batass

First of all, I must say I'm having a blast asking these questions. No one I know can answer questions like these.

Aperion-"Nitromethane has a higher heat of vaporization than methanol so it more effectively cools the intake charge"

Didnt know that, I figured nitro didnt have that property.

backinblack-"so if you can make 100lbs of boost with methanol, you could also make 100lbs of boost with nitro"

I guess that's what I was looking for. So the fact that nitro being a pro-detonant, the cooling properties of it cancel out the detonant issue? Or since they can run it rich as hell on the verdge of hydrolocking...I guess that puts it to rest then.

Remember the oklahoma city bombing? They said it was diesel and ammonium nitrate. I read it was actually ammonium nitrate and nitromethane. Super oxygen.

Is that the ultimate fuel? They can put so much fuel into the cylinder that is almost hydrolocks? Given its oxygen carrying ability and the available oxygen in the air, multiplied by the supercharger.

I read that article Aperion, good stuff. I like that quote by Smokey Yunick. I love reading that guys stuff. Amazing man. But it brings me to another question:

Gasoline contains 3 times the BTUs of nitro
Nitro, in simple terms, well super simple terms, contains liquid oxygen. I know thats not accurate, but sort of right?
Sooooo, what if you were to combine a fuel that contains higher BTUs than gas like kerosen or diesel, or a mixture of the two (jet fuel JP-8) and you were to induce liquid oxygen somehow. Technically you could make some ridiculously high power numbers????

On our jets fuel control, there was a setting for JP-8, JP-6, which is a mix of diesel and kerosen. Not a super crazy fuel like people think. Perhaps they get it mixed up with rocket fuel (which by the way just sparked a cell in my brain, could be what im talking about above). There was also a setting for gasoline on there. I was always telling people these jets would be quicker, faster with gas. But given the higher BTUs of the JP-8, with gasoline the mileage (or knotage?) would be significantly less. And probably not mission capable. They already burned up 300 gallons from start to takeoff.

Wheeeeeewww my brain's spinning in circles.

jerryd87

iTrader: (2)

they have diesel engines that rev much higher then that most of them rev to 3000-3500 but there are some(the diesels they use in europe) and gale banks sidewinder that rev up to 6000 rpms and make 1.5:1 lbs ft of torque to hp ratio compared to 2:1 of a standard diesel( so say instad of making 200lbs ft and 100hp make around 125 hp and 180 something lbs ft)

Apeiron

You could enclose ammonium nitrate and nitromethane in a steel combustion chamber. The air force hangs something very, very similar underneath various airplanes and drops them on things they don't like. You'd get similar results.

Yes he was, a little behind the times in this day and age, though.


Yes, rediculously high power numbers for the first couple of milliseconds until you melted holes in your pistons, heads, block, and who knows what else. A much safer alternative would be to think up an oxidizer that had another couple of atoms hanging on it to make it more stable, like maybe a couple of nitrogens or something.

Kerosene is a rocket fuel, when used with an appropriate oxidizer. The Soviet space program used it for years.

Batass

"like maybe a couple of nitrogens or something"

like nitro?

So by stable do you mean thoroughly mixed with the fuel, so there would be no hot spots? Or reduced anyway.

I just read that nitro actually burns slower than gasoline. Bottome of page http://www.nitrodrags.com/html/nitromethane.html

Is that true? I thought it was a pro-detonant, how would that be if it burned slower?

Anyways, so assuming thats what you meant by stable, a perfect mixture, you probably couldnt do that just by simpling mixing a fuel with liquid oxygen. You would need a chemical that actually bonded the two, hence nitro.

Would that be methanol and nitrous oxide?

The stoichiometric ratio is based on the available amount of oxygen in our atmosphere right? So getting weird here, on another planet with more oxygen in the air, that ratio would rise to more fuel per air.

So if you could combine say kerosene with nitrous oxide....isnt that possible? A lot more BTUs, and with extra oxygen, you could really cram a lot of fuel in.

Apeiron

No, nitrous oxide.

Detonation resistance isn't the same as combustion velocity.

Stoichiometry is determined by the balanced chemical equation of the reaction. It's a number of molecules of X + a number of molecules of Y gives a number of molecules of Z sort of thing. When you're figuring out how many molecules of X you have in your air, then you need to worry about the composition of air. The stoichiometry itself doesn't change though.

Batass

ch3no2, what is ch3, methane? Methanol? I cant find anything. But im guessing thats what it is, so nitrous oxide and methanol? Why cant they bond a higher btu fuel with nitrous? I found nitroEthane...

Six_Shooter

iTrader: (2)

Nitro and Nitrous Oxide are two VERY different things, never interchange the term.

Apeiron

I don't believe I did.

383backinblack

the problem you're experiencing here is that you're bouncing off about 10 different concepts, that you're looking for clarification on all of them.

nitromethane is a compound, look it up on wiki or something, it'll explain how its made as well.

methanol is not a component of nitromethane, neither is methane......it's made by treating propane with nitric acid, whic yields 3 other compounds besides nitromethane.

nitrous is a gas, and i highly doubt its soluble in gasoline.......it works because it provides extra oxygen to the combustion process.......nitrous oxide is only a liquid at extremely low temps and under high pressure.

nitrous oxide is n20........its not related to nitromethane in any way

Batass

So nitromethane actually carries more oxygen than nitrous...

I forgot that nitrous was n20 not no2, and methane sure sounds like methane a gas, not sure how that comes from propane....im no chemical engineer though.

So, Nitromethane is the most powerful fuel that an engine can reasonably withstand + more oxygen in a stable form of supercharging = most powerful 4 stroke engines to date.....and this concept has been around since the 70's.

So I guess what it comes down to is, until they come up with a better way of forging metal, or a new metal composition, these engines wouldnt hold up to more power anyway....

I hope I see the day when an n/a LOX+kerosene 10,000+hp drag car shoots down the track in 2 seconds. Sounds so simple....

383backinblack

the problem with pure oxygen is.......ever open the 02 valve on a torch before??? you get the idea......thats how we CUT metal, so it's a little rough on engine parts

Batass

Lol, yea that was my last job. I think that was Aperion's point in not being too stable. It needs to be mixed perfectly or fused with other atoms.

You know I heard that in some case, you can actually turn off the acetylene and just use straight oxy and it will use the metal as fuel.