Team 949 Racing Thunderhill 25 Hours
12-09-2011, 07:25 AM
#221
100%
There was one evening, I think Friday night, that a few of us were talking with Emilio, and one thing that came up is that there is nothing on his car that he doesn't sell, and there is nothing on his site that he hasn't run on his car. If he doesn't like a product, he just won't sell it. So my take is that you can bet that if he sells it, it is probably going to make your car faster/more reliable/better suited for the track if properly used.
As for next year, I never really thought about it until I read his post that sounds a little tongue and cheek, but getting some factory money behind the team SHOULD be a real possibility. After all, we did demolish this year's Mazda factory team. Running an NC or even possibly ND MX5 with factory backing (however big or small) would be epic. And I think that Emilio proved this year that 949 is up to the task. (I just hope that IF it does happen, he is allowed to keep whichever people he chooses.)
There was one evening, I think Friday night, that a few of us were talking with Emilio, and one thing that came up is that there is nothing on his car that he doesn't sell, and there is nothing on his site that he hasn't run on his car. If he doesn't like a product, he just won't sell it. So my take is that you can bet that if he sells it, it is probably going to make your car faster/more reliable/better suited for the track if properly used.
As for next year, I never really thought about it until I read his post that sounds a little tongue and cheek, but getting some factory money behind the team SHOULD be a real possibility. After all, we did demolish this year's Mazda factory team. Running an NC or even possibly ND MX5 with factory backing (however big or small) would be epic. And I think that Emilio proved this year that 949 is up to the task. (I just hope that IF it does happen, he is allowed to keep whichever people he chooses.)
Reply
0
0
12-09-2011, 01:30 PM
#222
Newb
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 35
Total Cats: 0
What was Mazda's "factory team?"
Reply
0
0
12-09-2011, 01:41 PM
#223
Seats are filling fast so if we still have a spot for him, he's on.
__________________
Reply
-1
-1
12-09-2011, 09:47 PM
#228
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
Agreed. For a centrifugal compressor, it would take something like a variable drive ratio, or perhaps active control via a throttle by wire system with torque output feedback. Either way, not simple, not easy, not practical for a DIY installation.
Reply
0
0
12-10-2011, 12:04 AM
#229
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Total Cats: -9
A restricted Rotrex can be made to have a very nice broad hp band but it will never match the breadth or flatness possible with a purpose built turbo system. That we have no ties with any Miata Rotrex vendor any longer and have strong ties with the premier Miata race turbo shop in the country, seals the deal.
Reply
-2
-2
12-10-2011, 12:37 AM
#230
Newb
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 35
Total Cats: 0
I wouldn't call it irony exactly but it is a little odd. I think that it has less to do with the product and more to do with Kraftwerks. I am interested to see what happens to the rotrex system in the coming years. I know that the Jacksons are still working with them, so I would expect things to happen at some point.
As for the rotrex units, I have never heard anything bad about them from anyone at 949, but for the specific classing for T25, the rotrex just doesn't make sense. If you could maintain max revs all the time it would work, but at the 25 you want to be able to short shift and/or just leave it in a given gear without losing too much speed. A rotrex just doesn't have enough down low to justify it when there are other systems that could do the same job a little better. The only way I could see a rotrex working is if you were going for modest power goals and running a bigger blower and capped max power at something like 200hp over the whole rev range.
I would assume that had Kraftwerks not imploded on itself, 949 would still be using and pushing them. Emilio isn't in the habit of selling products that he doesn't like.
As for the rotrex units, I have never heard anything bad about them from anyone at 949, but for the specific classing for T25, the rotrex just doesn't make sense. If you could maintain max revs all the time it would work, but at the 25 you want to be able to short shift and/or just leave it in a given gear without losing too much speed. A rotrex just doesn't have enough down low to justify it when there are other systems that could do the same job a little better. The only way I could see a rotrex working is if you were going for modest power goals and running a bigger blower and capped max power at something like 200hp over the whole rev range.
I would assume that had Kraftwerks not imploded on itself, 949 would still be using and pushing them. Emilio isn't in the habit of selling products that he doesn't like.
Reply
0
0
12-10-2011, 03:02 AM
#231
your statement is also untrue. Jackson Racing (both SR. and JR. were on the team) is still working with rotrex.
if NASA rewrite the rule tomorrow that is based on LB/tq. then choice would be different again.
Reply
0
0
12-10-2011, 01:02 PM
#234
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Total Cats: -9
that's uncalled for. I was the one who ran rotrex for 2 years. I loved it, still do. but you have to look at NASA rule. it is LB/hp. it is based on hp, not tq. so you can have unlimited torque, but are capped on hp. heck, I would run a diesel if it make financial and business sense.
your statement is also untrue. Jackson Racing (both SR. and JR. were on the team) is still working with rotrex.
if NASA rewrite the rule tomorrow that is based on LB/tq. then choice would be different again.
your statement is also untrue. Jackson Racing (both SR. and JR. were on the team) is still working with rotrex.
if NASA rewrite the rule tomorrow that is based on LB/tq. then choice would be different again.
I understand clearly why the choice was made, I just find it to be contradictory after reading previous posts downplaying turbo's because he sold rotrex kits.
Reply
-1
-1
12-10-2011, 02:14 PM
#235
You can call me many names but hypocrite isn't one of them. I am still a proponent of the Rotrex because everything else being equal... they are still easier to make bombproof for racing, make more peak power for a given pressure ratio/ CFM, create less thermal load on the oil and coolant per hp and deliver superior BSFC. The downside of a Rotrex based system, as everyone knows, is their linear boost rise and correspondingly inferior torque under the curve. This torque curve deficit can be worked around to the point that the differences are small, as we were able to accomplish on William's 230whp, 10psi time attack set up a few years ago. Maybe someone can post that dyno.
As a few people have clearly reminded those reading this thread, NASA PT favors maximum area under the curve. That's how Crusher was built and how we will build next years car. Vendor affiliations are secondary to the goal of winning. Rotrex's still kick ***, just might not be the right tool for the job in this case. The door hasn't closed yet though. We may run a car with F/I next year, if so, it would likely be a Borg EFR, but it could also be a Rotrex C15-60.
__________________
Last edited by emilio700; 12-11-2011 at 01:55 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-11-2011, 01:14 PM
#240
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Total Cats: -9
Can you find one post of mine where I clearly stated turbos are not suitable for track use?
You can call me many names but hypocrite isn't one of them. I am still a proponent of the Rotrex because everything else being equal... they are still easier to make bombproof for racing, make more peak power for a given pressure ratio/ CFM, create less thermal load on the oil and coolant per hp and deliver superior BSFC. The downside of a Rotrex based system, as everyone knows, is their linear boost rise and correspondingly inferior torque under the curve. This torque curve deficit can be worked around to the point that the differences are small, as we were able to accomplish on William's 230whp, 10psi time attack set up a few years ago. Maybe someone can post that dyno.
As a few people have clearly reminded those reading this thread, NASA PT favors maximum area under the curve. That's how Crusher was built and how we will build next years car. Vendor affiliations are secondary to the goal of winning. Rotrex's still kick ***, just might not be the right tool for the job in this case. The door hasn't closed yet though. We may run a car with F/I next year, if so, it would likely be a Borg EFR, but it could also be a Rotrex C15-60.
You can call me many names but hypocrite isn't one of them. I am still a proponent of the Rotrex because everything else being equal... they are still easier to make bombproof for racing, make more peak power for a given pressure ratio/ CFM, create less thermal load on the oil and coolant per hp and deliver superior BSFC. The downside of a Rotrex based system, as everyone knows, is their linear boost rise and correspondingly inferior torque under the curve. This torque curve deficit can be worked around to the point that the differences are small, as we were able to accomplish on William's 230whp, 10psi time attack set up a few years ago. Maybe someone can post that dyno.
As a few people have clearly reminded those reading this thread, NASA PT favors maximum area under the curve. That's how Crusher was built and how we will build next years car. Vendor affiliations are secondary to the goal of winning. Rotrex's still kick ***, just might not be the right tool for the job in this case. The door hasn't closed yet though. We may run a car with F/I next year, if so, it would likely be a Borg EFR, but it could also be a Rotrex C15-60.
Let me guess, you guys will use a TrackSpeed turbo kit on the next car.
Reply
-2
-2
