My question in this age of technology, Do they actually dyno these engines before, during and after making up the limits or is it just a guestimate?
I mean today you can have real time performance mapping from the track, Most teams dont and shouldn't, But shouldn't a organization if its going to implement stuff? I really don't need a computer, I can hear it. A esslinger works best and is pulling harder in the high rpm band. A Toyota seems to come in much sooner and not lose much at the high end.
Much like the Two Cycle and Four Cycle motorcycle engines.
The Two Cycle needs to be at the upper band of the tach to perform best. The Four Cycle pulls at much lower RPM and doesn't lose much at the high end.
I also always wondered why stock block low cube v6s weren't allowed such as that old small 2.8 litre V6 ford used to put in it's capri's and mustangs, or the v6 cosworth vega? You'd have the power in a package working one third less hard.
Just thinking out loud on the last bit. But still wondering if there are actual data test before putting limits. And yes, I think getting 25 races before a rebuild is much better than maybe 15.
I always loved the innovation of the midgets, Heck at one time a outboard boat motor was the hot ticket. About five or six years ago some team from down under had a block and crank made to combine two hyabusa motorcycle engines to make a low cubic litre v8. I know it ran the chili bowl and I think they had two cars. Here's a link. Synergy Engine Midget
http://www.synergypower.co.nz/index....-installation/
Was it written out of the rule books or never let in? They said the cost comparison for building was negligible compared to the top midget engines at the time. But that motor would be working half as hard and build right lasted longer.
Oh well, just more thoughts through the proverbial keyboard.
Chuck