Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:45 AM
"94mm stroke, 86mm pistons"
Woa, for real? It's that under-square and still revs to 9,000 RPM? With that much boost!? Amazing. I know there are some high-revving, under-square 4-pots out there (F22C comes to mind), but this still seems incredible to me.
Killer car and great write-up!
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:49 AM
When a competitor reads the rulebook he can't be thinking about the spirit of the rules, he can only be thinking into what is written, an as such the NEMO was a clever interpretation of the rules, that left anyone thinking why haven't I done this before.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:09 AM
Best quote of the article "Garth at SMP is basically Takumi on Mt. Akina."
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:22 PM
I agree that there is a spirit to the rules, but I also believe in bending the rules to point of breaking them. This is where creativity comes from. It also comes from doing as much within that box of rules as possible. By pushing these boundaries, teams can explore the fastest laps possible. But lines do need to be drawn to keep out full-fledged race cars in my opinion.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:27 PM
This had me snickering like a 13 year old boy.. "...the BW SX series are ultra strong and have large shafts..."
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:59 PM
Just to clarify, this car was built and is maintained by Trent at TM Automotive. Not Radical.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:02 PM
Right on, I have been on the edge of my seat for some more TA features on MotoIQ for awhile now. Fun to read about the Tilton evo. Much easier for me to relate to Tilton versus Nemo. Eric, I wouldn't guess ANY of Nemo's aero is "random" ... probably all very well thought out and purposeful.
Which ark gtr? I have a distant memory of a car that was supposed to run in the WTAC as a podium contender, but it has been so long since any form of update, I don't remember anymore.
For me, it has always been clear what the spirit of TA is/was, and more importantly, what was not in the spirit of TA. Everyone has their own opinions and desires for the sport, but it seems BEYOND common sense to say, the more tubes, the less like TA it is. That is not to say I don't expect portions of the front end to evolve into a tube-based support structure instead of a crash structure, but when the tubes extend beyond a support structure, and proportionally become more tube frame than unibody, I loose a ton of interest.
Great comment about the need for some rules Eric, as well as laughing at the thought of tube frame cars being restricted to grooved tires. lol
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:40 PM
So at what point do we call cutting a giant whole in the unibody (where the back seat use to be, in this case), still leaving the unibody in 'tact'? It's still a large section of the chassis removed, from what I can guess.
This is where the spirit of the sport becomes opinionated and a grey area...although I'm pretty sure I can still spy factory trunk sheet metal ;)
Should be a good show this year.
Have fun down under,
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:18 PM
DrunkenMessiah: Yes, these engines are very real.
Rhys: I never did say was built at Radical Australia. I only said that the car was at Radical when we took the pictures. I have made the revisions in the story where credit is due. Thanks for the information. I could not find a website for TM Automotive or I would have linked it.
Micah: Cutting out a non-structural rectangular area where the rear lower seat cushions used to be to mount two tanks is a far cry from taking a Sawzall to the B-pillar and everything behind it. While NEMO was a fantastic build, it really is a car of a different class. I know what you mean by the grey areas though. It isn't my decision to allow tube frame cars to run or not so it's just my opinion.
My thoughts of a proper Pro Class Time Attack car have always been very simple: everything between the A and C pillars should remain intact. Firewalls separating the engine and cockpit cannot be relocated. Floors can be cut out to some degree (perhaps a percentage rule since floors are not structural when a proper cage is integrated), but rails and tunnels cannot be cut out or replaced. I think that's pretty simple, but in reality it's all up to the people who make the rules. We'll see what is to become of the rules after WTAC 2013.
This year is going to be instrumental in helping the WTAC people in making a decision moving forward. If no other cars show up with partial tube frame construction, then I think that will show the event owners which direction Pro Class Time Attack cars are not going. If more show up and they smoke the unibody cars, then there will likely be a new unlimited pro class for 2014. Of course there are more scenarios, but we'll see what happens.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:53 PM
I'd have no problem with the way you would want to see the class. It has a pretty simple, clear and concise decision on what is allowed to be modified on the chassis.
As MSQJ318is touched on; if you allow it in the rules, the competitor (more so the engineer) will take advantage of the loop holes...but you already knew that.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:27 AM
Micah: I sure would not put the removal of non-structural sheet metal into the same category as hacking B pillars and large chunks of the frame itself. I don't believe they are equal in effort or overall effect.
Regardless, I am very very excited for the WTAC this year. I hope Suzuki takes a decisive win overall. I still catch myself looking at pics of SSE's Christine, I wish that beast was still running TA. The WTAC website makes so many back-handed compliments towards SSE's car, I wish DK would get the band back together and create a v2 of Christine to head down unda' again.
Anyone know where Mark Berry's r34 went? No mention of it on the WTAC site this year.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:25 AM
Great write up Eric. Thanks for sharing.
We'll see what happens this week with Tarzan behind the NSX Esprit.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:25 PM
Um, I'm still interested in that whole "another story for another day" business ;-) Too much hope invested in the success of this project for you guys. I'm suprised we're not seeing a Chinese knockoff R32 this week :-o
I would contend that the new aero package immediately reminded me of Nemo as soon as I saw that picture and I would contend that cutting anything out from the firewall to the c-pillar, including the floor should immediately push a car to an a Unlimited class but none of that matters 'cause Eric's the man!!
Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:43 PM
Eeen, I know there is a large difference in removing a b-pillar and a section of flooring...though much less so when making a cage.
My point is from the perspective of an engineer reading the rules. It didn't say that it wasn't allowed, so why not take advantage of it?!! That is what I'm saying. If it is left grey, it is still open to interpretation. That is why I like Eric's take on how it should be. One step further is to have the clause, "if it isn't explicitly allowed, it isn't allowed" BUT that mentality can hamper innovation or drive up cost. Hello FIA.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:10 PM
What happened to more signal less noise?
It felt like every 3rd sentence was dedicated to your personal disliking of NEMO's effort. I don't believe they deserve that kind of disrespect. You are writing an opinion piece, which is fine but we all understood by the end of the first page that you felt NEMO cheated the rule book. Rules are rules, if the sanctioning body found no fault in their interpretation...then all the other teams just didn't step to the plate like they did, this is racing not knitting club. Please return to providing indepth TECHNICAL articles.
Attempting to redefine class structure for self serving purposes looks very weak, we all expect more from the MotoIQ team.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:27 PM
Skullworks - I didn't really get that inference. Just sayin, you might be a little off.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:06 PM
There are three or four sentences throughout the 9 pages where I mention my opinion of NEMO. But then again you still didn't really understand what I wrote because I never said I disliked NEMO's effort. I think the car was an awesome build by a great team of builders and engineers. Summarizing what I did say was:
1. It is no longer a unibody car (fact, not opinion)
2. It is built beyond the spirit of the rules (opinion)
3. NEMO is built beyond what a Pro Class Time Attack should be (opinion)
4. NEMO's aero has wings, flaps, and panels all over the car (fact, not opinion)
I can write whatever I want on MotoIQ until the owners tell me otherwise. If you don't like what I write simply do not read. I welcome your opinion positive or negative, but you are taking the 8.8 pages of factual content and calling it all opinion here which is pretty fucking lame. Are you a memeber of the communist party or something? Is my "propaganda" not to your liking? The last time I checked, I can write whatever I want thanks to the constitution. If the government has a problem with me saying that NEMO is built beyond the rules, they can come and arrest me. Oh wait...they're closed. Well they can come and arrest me after they decide to reopen.
I did not write the propagandous opinionated feature for my self-serving purposes either. It is in fact for the sake of the future of the sport. Half of the reason why I even write these features on Time Attack cars is to generate some interest in the sport in the US. At the moment we're lucky enough that certain individuals are willing to pour money into building cars like this at all. The reality is that most rich guys (probably more than 99%) would rather go "real" racing (sportscars, FIA GT, Grand Am, etc.). We need to keep Time Attack as "affordable" as it can be and one of the best ways to do this is to retain the complete unibody as per my previous comment. Plenty of innovation can still happen around a factory unibody. This can allow other teams that are rich in ingenuity (and not money) still have a chance of building a bad ass competitive car.
But in the end if you want to take the 3 or 4 sentences of opinion and discount the other 8.8 pages of factual content, then I guess that's your prerogative. Perhaps you are the noise here at MotoIQ. But whatever floats your boat buddy! Start your own website and write your own stories full of technical facts. I'm sure all kinds of people will flock there because MotoIQ is now completely lame (by your opinion no less).
Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:42 PM
micah : My bad, I misunderstood what you were getting at. I agree with that, there was a loop hole(s), and Nemo was built capitalizing on that. Not Nemo's fault, WTAC fault. Then again, the same loop hole was left open to everyone else, but they did not go down that path. Some I bet willingly avoiding that path, others could not go down that path even if they wanted, for financial and skill-based reasons. Sorta like wtac said, "we will cross this tube-bridge when we get there" , especially when you consider what WTAC said in regards to the GR fd being aloud to run.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:36 PM
Thanks for the article Eric, always a treat!
Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:21 PM
Wow I knew i was going to strike a nerve calling you on your BS OP-ED piece here but you have outdone yourself again...resorting to political accusations, cursing, and generally blowing things out of proportion.
Get a grip dude, you look like an ass responding so angrily to an honest observation. It is clear you can't take any criticism so don't pretend like you can.
And could you revisit for me why F1 engines don't use variable cam timing?...
Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:40 PM
If we want to keep WTAC and the like cheap, let's get rid of the sequential trans rules. When you compare buying a $40k trans versus chopping up a unibody and buying some tubing/associated materials ($500-1000) to shave 80 lbs from the car...all in the name of going faster ;)
Yeah, so playing Devil's Advocate is kind of fun.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:59 PM
SkullWorks: this article is written by Eric for our benefit. We are not entitled to this article, as we are not paying any form of subscription.
You are as free to disagree with the writers on opinions as anyone else, but if you're gonna be a shithead about it, get out.
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:46 PM
Skullworks - Once again, do you think before you write? Eric takes your criticism, explains that maybe 4 LINES out of a 9 PAGE article might be considered opinion and yet you state once again that he's written an OPINION piece. You clearly care enough to read the article (although I wonder how much you read) and write to criticize Eric, not listen to his counterpoint and then insult him again. Oh wait, and then ask him of this help in understanding something?
How would you feel if someone tried to piss on your work?
Eric - Aren't you and the homeboys halfway across the world getting us the scoop on the baddest Time Attack machines in the world?
How does it go, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you?"
Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:40 PM
Wow did any of you read what I wrote and the response? I never attacked or made assumptions about his political alignment, nor did i throw out F-bombs.
Eric didn't take my criticism but did acknowledge his article was a "propagandous opinionated feature"
Try to act like rational humans with your own intellect, nothing I wrote was
2. falsely presented as fact
3. directed personally at Eric as a human.
and if anybody bothered to review the article and the amount of literary content, ~1/3 of all sentences not including captions were a direct or very slightly indirect reference to NEMO.
As for you two worshiping at the feet of Mr. Hsu...do as you wish I made an observation it was valid and could just as easily been discussed in a civil manner. but yes I am obviously a horrible non-contributing asshole who just drags this site down...
The only thing being fed here is Eric's ego...there wasn't any "knowledge" in this article, and that is another issue entirely...remember when this site had more signal and less noise? I do...there was as much left to question in this "piece" as there was "factual information"
Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:47 PM
"Spirit of the rules" guides the new rules when somebody shows up with something more then intended. The actual rules guide how the cars are built though and you can't blame somebody for showing up with something technically legal but not within the spirit of the rules.
Unfortunately, when somebody comes in and builds to the letter of the rules and has the funds to "bend" every rule, it seems like it kills the class in the end. Wish I could find a picture of the GM Hotrod cars from like 2003 (I think that's who, when, and what class anyway) when they showed up with "strut towers" welded to a tube chassis and had an A-Arm front end because the rules read something like "must maintain front strut mount positions".
Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:06 PM
Skull: if you reread your original comment, you'll see that you criticized MotoIQ for publishing an opinionated article and then you accused me of writing a self-serving opinionated piece. Check out a dictionary for the definitions of "criticize" and "accuse". I do not take accusations likely and apparently you do not either.
Bruce: Part of the reason I am not in Australia at WTAC is because I am in Georgia at Petit Le Mans this week working for an engine supplier and an LMP2 team. Unfortunately work comes first and play (Time Attack) must come later. Next year we'll be at WTAC for sure. I'll be writing some updated opinionated, self serving articles soon on the GTR.
Friday, October 18, 2013 12:12 AM
The Tilton EVO did a 1:25.225 earlier today which only 0.2 seconds away from NEMO's time last year. I don't know how to create HTML links in these new MotoIQ software so copy and paste this:
Friday, October 18, 2013 1:09 AM
Talk about cool things and the universe brings coolness forward!
LMP2 huh? More of a GT3 fan myself, but you are there for work. Would love to see an inside look at the Lotus.....
Oh and please do give us some of those "updated opinionated, self serving articles soon on the GTR."
PS See now I can say something critical about the article because I thought you guys were Down Under ;-) I assumed and it only made an ass out of me, haha!
Friday, October 18, 2013 1:18 AM
I also would like to read/view some opinionated, self serving articles about the r32 TA car.... and more time attack features in general.
I hope Suzuki, NOB and Tarzan get to make some drama-free laps! I can't believe how quick the Hammerhead is... sitting right next to Nemo with a 1:27.7x
Friday, October 18, 2013 7:52 AM
1:24.855 now. The Tilton boys came out pissed off and ready to fight ;)
Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:34 AM
Dude, that run was sick! Under Suzuki was on the race line on a cool down lap and Garth passed him on the outside barely missing a trackside sign. It looks like they didn't get the paddle shifters to work because Garth is still shifting manually.
I just got off the phone with Ian Baker, the man behind WTAC. He said that NEMO has blown two head gaskets and has retired, but they have not even matched their time last year. The driver Warren Luff has already gone home for the day. The "japs" are all off the pace too with both Suzuki and Top Fuel doing 1:28s. The car that might surprise is the MCA S13. He says they think it has a 1:26.xxx in it.
Damn, I wish I was there. Instead I'll be doing the polar opposite of Time Attack (endurance racing) tomorrow. I love them both, but WTAC is magical. You just need to experience it to understand what I mean.
Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:46 AM
I read about the one head gasket like an hour ago but I must not be up to date. Best I'd read for the s13 was a 1:27 range so far.
PS what engine line are you guys representing for these LMP2 cars?
Saturday, October 19, 2013 12:55 AM
Yeah I got the news from the horse's mouth (Ian). I think the WTAC site is having trouble keeping up right now. I cannot load certain pages.
MCA hasn't run a 1:26 yet, but they think it will.
Monday, October 28, 2013 7:16 PM
Yah honestly Eric, I consider you my friend but this stuff was a little convenient. Like not talking in detail about how nearly the same chunk of floorpan was cut out as Nemo except it just had a fuel cell placed there instead of something else. Or that like you can have a nice custom subframe but if its shaped differently its suddenly going too far. Certain people in the Nemo team really hurt the perception by loving to embellish in how far things had gone but its not nearly as extreme as it often gets portrayed. Nemo had a lot of rear chassis stuff cut out, but many cars already had done that, similar or more. Nobody was writing articles going on and on about it.
What it really came down to was that it beat everyone, and suddenly it wasnt OK anymore. Then it gets beat this year which should really be evidence that it wasnt like cutting out 100mm more floorpan suddenly turned the car into some kind of ultimate machine that was unbeatable. So can we stop beating a dead horse, after new rules that absolutely annihilated Nemo and it complied without a single word of complaint?
Honestly this discussion, its just getting really really played out.
Monday, October 28, 2013 8:42 PM
Agreed that the topic is dead. I've pretty much said what needs to be said. Nemo is much different in the rear than the Tilton car however. It's not just a difference in subframe shape or some extra sheet metal cut out. If the tubular rear subframe were removed on the Tilton car, you could bolt the factory Mitsubishi subframe right back on. They are very, very different cars from the rear of the seat and back. It was not convenient. It is factual.
Imagine if Nemo had Tilton's power. Now that would be crazy. I suspect that Tilton had 200-300hp on Nemo, but that's purely speculation.
Monday, October 28, 2013 8:56 PM
This is all very frank and accurate.
I measured Nemo's power based on vehicle mass values/acceleration. Gear ratio measured from wheel speed vs engine speed and this is a value at the tires. Tire growth at speed unaccounted for and mass is very accurate from corner scale the power was 450hp on the 25.7 lap with the video and a smidge over 500 on the 25.0 lap from 2012. These are pure numbers from the data, no compensations, no BS. Tilton's public figures quote 800hp+ and I believe it.
Nemo cut out more sheet metal from where tiltons fuel cell is on back, the region that Tilton cut out under the fuel cell is similar to what Nemo cut out in that region with the exception that the frame rails were removed outboard of them. You can go to many competitor web pages and find the entire floor pan from the rear seat area back missing, thats all I need to say on that. The only disputed portion is between the foot area of the rear passengers to the seat area of the rear passengers and that was removed on Nemo but a big portion of that was also removed on Tilton but you cannot see it because its under the big fuel cell/cover thing.
Yes Nemo's rear subframe did not bolt to factory locations. Another famous and loved japanese evo's wasnt even bolt on.. it was welded to the chassis and the factory bolt points were gone completely and that was years before. Thats about the extent of the debate in my mind frankly.
Monday, October 28, 2013 9:02 PM
Also one other little known fact: Nemo was heavier than the min weight, last year and this year. The owner liked to quote a figure that was never reached and the reality was that worked out nicely because people thought it was the weight and not the aero that enabled the performance. So when nemo was attacked by the rules the team held onto that quote so that the rules penalties would focus on adding weight when the car was already that heavy.
What the rules achieved though was making Nemo spend its development cycle putting a fuel cell in the exact same place as Tiltons so that their cut up floor was now just like Tiltons and therefore legal.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:17 PM
What was the deal with Nemo not having a spare engine? It seemed weird that a program like Nemo didn't have a spare.
Andrew: your aero, Kojima's chassis, my engine, somebody's 7 digit budget, and some nutty driver in a freaking Lotus = Time Attack world beater. One of these days it will happen...
Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:04 AM
Eric - You and I posited this theory about the ultimate TA car, a couple years ago, which theoretically would mean an MR with gobs of power and aero. That one from Prepped(?) has done okay, but a K-series with turbo and reliable tranny should cover power train. I'd imagine that adding all that lightness with the aero would tear through your budget.
.......I think if I fit in an Exige, I'd have bought one already.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:18 PM
Eric, the team owner was not in the same financial situation he once was. I dont want to go much more in depth than that publicly. Certainly I dont want it to seem like Tilton did not earn a victory, they not only won but they did bump the record they are the fastest now and thats is a package of all facets including having good and well funded people running the team.
Also it is worth noting I had a chat with Nakajima about how he measures his aero load and the values quoted by Voltex cannot be directly compared to most other numbers out there because of his measurement methodology is a bit non standard.
He said he measures values at the spring not values backed out to be at the tire. For example Nemo's downforce as measured at a QR test last year was 5300lbf@240kmh, the direct value at the springs like how nakajima measures it would have been 9464lbf@240kmh, nearly double.
Also, I typically use a "map average", or ride height at average speed around a circuit, where nakajima measures a peak on the straight at fuji and then backs out to 240kmh. That means we are calculating at very different ride heights because his car is compressed by 270-280kmh worth of aero load and mine is for 164kmh worth of aero load as that is the average speed from the 25.0 lap around the circuit I take the value from that point in the aero map, not the lowest ride height seen at top speed.
Friday, November 01, 2013 4:47 PM
Some numbskull needs to work on his reading comprehension. Where did he go to University?
Friday, November 01, 2013 10:37 PM
Sunday, November 03, 2013 3:33 AM
I hope you do not take me to mean that your technique was deceptive or misleading, I did not think of you that way at all. Simply different.
Of course the most important value for any aerodynamicist is relative performance. I think aerodynamicists all know that even if the base value is wrong, the relative performance important. Obviously the car went much faster and won, the greatest success for an aerodynamicist.
But as often as we understand that, others ask for the numbers, which are then repeated in the media and the result can be an unfair or highly inaccurate comparisons being drawn. Especially when the difference is quite large, I think its important that if we do not adhere to a standard, at least people understand that they are different.