Jump to content


Chaparral 2D Gears Confusion


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#76 M Needforspeed

M Needforspeed

    Denny Hulme

  • GPLLinks Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:GPL - start a collection of GPL era die cast racing cars -Skiing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 06:39 AM

all that 5000 Rpm affair explains why in pits, the Chaparral drivers kept the foot on the brake pedal.At 5000 RPM, the torque converter wld have blocked the turbine output firmly, and the car train would have moved.In order to keep simplicity at max, there was no way to stay in neutral gear.  
   With a planetary gearset,keeping the sliding shaft in neutral wld have been easier to put inside the system.

   But at the start of the race, competitors that could revs at 6500/7000 Rpm  got clearly an advantage over the Chaparrals car.That's what Denis Hulme says,in his own words.The 427 was also used by Jim Hall 2G  on the 1967 Can Am races.

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 06 2010 - 06:44 AM.


#77 Paddy the Irishman

Paddy the Irishman

    Paddy the Irishman

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexhill on Sea, E. Sussex, England
  • Interests:GPL; Model Cars; Photography. Assetto Corsa
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 07:04 AM

View Postrichard cooke, on Dec 06 2010 - 06:14 AM, said:

View PostPaddy the Irishman, on Dec 06 2010 - 04:20 AM, said:

Now to try upshifts on the Chapps at 5000rpm....
I thought the info says stay above 5000rpm, not shift at 5000  :)
:oops: You're right Richard, and there was I thinking that I might have found an advantage  :idunno:  :unsure:

#78 Lee200

Lee200

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 08:26 AM

View PostM Needforspeed, on Dec 05 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:


    I checked infos on the Chaparral gearbox, and crossed technical books and mags,thinking rather twice before posting this.


     Beginning by the end, for those who had doubt, [u][b]the 2F selector wasn 't sequential.It was only a clutchless gear change system......


Hi Marcel and thanks for all this great information on the Chappie's "mystery transmission". :bigclap:

This agrees with the limited information we had at the time about the torque converter and how it worked.  So the sports cars are modeled pretty well IMHO.

The only area that I'm a little sceptical about are the torque and horsepower curve charts.  The 427 engine is shown producing about 580 horsepower which I believe is optimistic.  In 1966, Ford tested a single overhead cam version of their 427 engine that produced 575 horsepower, but they never used it and stuck with the familiar pushrod design which produced 500 to 525 horsepower depending on which source you read.  I suspect the Chappie's Chevrolet 427 engine was similar and AFAIK, it used pushrods too.  So that's why we used 525 horsepower as the base power for that engine.

Of course, to simulate a torque converter in GPL, the only way is to artificially use a lower power engine which is what we did.  On average, the Chappie 2D and 2F engine was tweaked to be about 80% efficient to account for the torque converter.

In one of your pictures, the torque converter is clearly shown.

FYI, here are my notes about how torque converters work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some notes on torque converters and how to simulate them in GPL.

A torque converter is a fluid coupling designed so that it can also act as a torque multiplier.  The engine output shaft is connected directly to a rotor, called the impeller, and a second rotor, called the turbine, is connected directly to the transmission input shaft.  Normally the two rotors are not physically connected and transmission fluid/oil is used to transmit the force from the impeller to the turbine.

When the two rotors are not physically connected, they are free to rotate at different speeds.  The ratio of the turbine to impeller speeds is usually noted as V. V will vary from 0 when the turbine is not turning at all to 1.00 when the turbine and impeller speeds are the same.

The "stall speed" is defined as being V=0 and really has nothing to do with engine speed.  It is simply the point where the turbine is not turning.  Above the stall speed, the turbine turns and transmits torque to the gears.  Passenger car torque converters are designed so that the engine can idle and not produce car motion; especially with the brakes applied.  Racing torque converters are designed to have a stall speed that matches the engine's maximum torque rpm to produce maximum car acceleration.

At stall speed, the torque converter multiplies input torque by a factor of around 1.5 to 2.5 times.  This multiplication factor decreases in a linear fashion with V and can go below 1.0 when V=1.00.  Obviously, this is inefficient and passenger car torque converters have a mechanical clutch that activates around V=.90 which physically locks the impeller and turbine together so they rotate at the same speed.  This immediately causes V to be 1.00 and torque multiplication to remain constant at 1.0.

The efficiency of a torque converter is measured as the ratio of output to input torque taking into account the torque multiplier effect.  It is parabolically shaped, beginning at 0% at stall speed, rising to a maximum around 80% when V=.80 and decreasing as V increases to 1.00.  If a mechanical clutch is fitted and engaged, the efficiency increases linearly from that point until it reaches 97% to 100% when V=1.00.

My research has turned up very little information on maximum torque converter efficiency before clutch engagement, but the few data I've seen show maximum efficiency between 75% to 90%.  Close to maximum efficiency occurs over a fairly wide V range of .40 to .90.

The multiplier effect and efficiency probably vary depending on the input torque and impeller speed which are directly related to the engine.  However, the only data I've seen and this discussion are based on a constant input torque and impeller speed.

For GPL, we don't have code to create a torque converter so the only way to simulate it is to modify the engine BMEP/torque curve and/or the engine's capacity so that less torque gets to the gearbox. Assuming a racing engine is usually accelerating or decelerating, we could also assume that the torque converter's V will typically be somewhere around .50 where efficiency is only slighlty less than maximum due to the relatively level shape of the parabolic curve at that point.

For the Chapparal 7.0L engine, Richard used an average of about 81% efficiency in the high rpm range where a racing engine normally operates which seems reasonable.

The Chaparral had what was considered at the time to be a "mystery" transmission.  From my research today, it seems this was a torque converter coupled to a normal three speed manual transmission.  I've found no data on the torque converter's efficiency or whether Chaparral used a clutch to couple the impeller and turbine rotors.  I doubt they bothered with an impeller/turbine clutch as a racing torque converter is rarely at V=1.00 where the clutch could enhance efficiency.  Also, one source says that Chevrolet didn't introduce the lockup clutch on their torque converters until 1979 so it's doubtful that the Chaparral had one.

Although less efficient than a manual clutch, the torque converter allowed Chaparral to do away with the clutch pedal and thus gave the driver the ability to operate the movable wing with his left foot instead.  Obviously, Jim Hall thought the gain from the wing outweighed the loss from the torque converter.

Attached Files


Edited by Lee200, Dec 06 2010 - 08:33 AM.


#79 sky

sky

    ultra highres junkie & 917 addict

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the last haven for petrolheads
  • Interests:travel, music, racing, vintage cars, model cars
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 08:52 AM

lee,

i was thinking the same about the engine power output, but it might be 525bhp at the wheels compared to idk 580 at the crank or wherever else they measure? one of those common misunderstandings... ?

#80 Lee200

Lee200

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 09:06 AM

View Postsky, on Dec 06 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

lee,

i was thinking the same about the engine power output, but it might be 525bhp at the wheels compared to idk 580 at the crank or wherever else they measure? one of those common misunderstandings... ?

Yes, you could be right Roman.  There are all sorts of ways of measuring horsepower.  The horsepower curves we have for the Ford are engine horsepower though; not at the wheels.

Until the large 7.0L engines were banned for 1968, Ford was working on this monster which used two camshafts with pushrods and reportedly produced 630 horsepower:

http://srmz.net/inde...6254&qpid=56168

By pure coincidence, one of the Ford dyno technicians from the '60s lives near me and he told me the Calliope engine was worthless as the intake systems didn't allow the power to be modulated well.  It was pretty much 0 horsepower or 630 horsepower.  Try driving that   :o

Attached Files


Edited by Lee200, Dec 06 2010 - 09:19 AM.


#81 M Needforspeed

M Needforspeed

    Denny Hulme

  • GPLLinks Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:GPL - start a collection of GPL era die cast racing cars -Skiing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 09:10 AM

View PostLee200, on Dec 06 2010 - 08:26 AM, said:



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some notes on torque converters and how to simulate them in GPL.




At stall speed, the torque converter multiplies input torque by a factor of around 1.5 to 2.5 times.  This multiplication factor decreases in a linear fashion with V and can go below 1.0 when V=1.00.  Obviously, this is inefficient and passenger car torque converters have a mechanical clutch that activates around V=.90 which physically locks the impeller and turbine together so they rotate at the same speed.  This immediately causes V to be 1.00 and torque multiplication to remain constant at 1.0.







  On some later systems , but on the Dynaflow mounted on the Buick tourism cars, they got upper the V= 1.00

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 06 2010 - 09:22 AM.


#82 M Needforspeed

M Needforspeed

    Denny Hulme

  • GPLLinks Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:GPL - start a collection of GPL era die cast racing cars -Skiing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 09:25 AM

View PostLee200, on Dec 06 2010 - 08:26 AM, said:




--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some notes on torque converters and how to simulate them in GPL.



The "stall speed" is defined as being V=0 and really has nothing to do with engine speed.  It is simply the point where the turbine is not turning.  Above the stall speed, the turbine turns and transmits torque to the gears.  Passenger car torque converters are designed so that the engine can idle and not produce car motion; especially with the brakes applied.  Racing torque converters are designed to have a stall speed that matches the engine's maximum torque rpm to produce maximum car acceleration.

At stall speed, the torque converter multiplies input torque by a factor of around 1.5 to 2.5 times.  This multiplication factor decreases in a linear fashion with V and can go below 1.0 when V=1.00.  Obviously, this is inefficient and passenger car torque converters have a mechanical clutch that activates around V=.90 which physically locks the impeller and turbine together so they rotate at the same speed.  This immediately causes V to be 1.00 and torque multiplication to remain constant at 1.0.

The efficiency of a torque converter is measured as the ratio of output to input torque taking into account the torque multiplier effect.  It is parabolically shaped, beginning at 0% at stall speed, rising to a maximum around 80% when V=.80 and decreasing as V increases to 1.00.  If a mechanical clutch is fitted and engaged, the efficiency increases linearly from that point until it reaches 97% to 100% when V=1.00.

My research has turned up very little information on maximum torque converter efficiency before clutch engagement, but the few data I've seen show maximum efficiency between 75% to 90%.  Close to maximum efficiency occurs over a fairly wide V range of .40 to .90.

The multiplier effect and efficiency probably vary depending on the input torque and impeller speed which are directly related to the engine.  However, the only data I've seen and this discussion are based on a constant input torque and impeller speed.

For GPL, we don't have code to create a torque converter so the only way to simulate it is to modify the engine BMEP/torque curve and/or the engine's capacity so that less torque gets to the gearbox. Assuming a racing engine is usually accelerating or decelerating, we could also assume that the torque converter's V will typically be somewhere around .50 where efficiency is only slighlty less than maximum due to the relatively level shape of the parabolic curve at that point.

For the Chapparal 7.0L engine, Richard used an average of about 81% efficiency in the high rpm range where a racing engine normally operates which seems reasonable.

The Chaparral had what was considered at the time to be a "mystery" transmission.  From my research today, it seems this was a torque converter coupled to a normal three speed manual transmission.  I've found no data on the torque converter's efficiency or whether Chaparral used a clutch to couple the impeller and turbine rotors.  I doubt they bothered with an impeller/turbine clutch as a racing torque converter is rarely at V=1.00 where the clutch could enhance efficiency.  Also, one source says that Chevrolet didn't introduce the lockup clutch on their torque converters until 1979 so it's doubtful that the Chaparral had one.

Although less efficient than a manual clutch, the torque converter allowed Chaparral to do away with the clutch pedal and thus gave the driver the ability to operate the movable wing with his left foot instead.  Obviously, Jim Hall thought the gain from the wing outweighed the loss from the torque converter.

Lee,

First, this post was only to display some infos.Not putting a doubt on the mod team work on the physics , and I am sure that 's the way you feel it. :wave:
  
  I took for granted readers knew about the way a torque converter runs in my post, but thank really to explain it clearly, what I should have done first !    
  
We have some figure for the Chaparral input torque factor.The ratio was 1/2.41.But as you say, it can't be a fixed number and depend on the flow efficiency on various conditions during competition use on different tracks.  

For the engine power and torque curve, the graph is the one provided for the 427 engine R & D Chevrolet department.It is reproduced on the engineer Van Valkenburg book " Chevrolet.... racing ? ".But on all the infos we have on the Chaparral 2F, it is well the 525 Bhp that were claimed.Hey, seen what  the Midland/Detroit bridge men racing philosophy, they could hide as well some numbers, here...
For the 2G, Jim Hall used the 427 but with higher power figures, and that can be this engine numbers.    

  Anyway, it won't change much the power curve, as you can compare on the 460 put on the later Chaparral 2 H.  

  From what I have learned from the Torque converters different architectures, a way to improve the ratio efficiency between Impeller and Turbine, was lighter  turbines with less inertia;And a way to get that, was putting two turbines that received the oil flooding .
  One thing they could do, too, was machining special shaped Stator. As you know, the stator as an influence on the oil flowing speed, thus on the torque transmitted to the turbine, and to the output shaft.Without any later lock up clutch.

  Beyond all this, and I wanted to illustrate with few pics of Tarpaulin covering the gearbox affair, we can wonder now why Jim Hall put such importance on keeping the casing from the eyesights of specialists and competitors .There was not manys things to learn from the casing shape, apart, as Kurleto says the absence of the planetary geartrain.
  And the torque converter wasn't a component with problems. Anyway, the tools and the time necessary to work on it, wld have put the car first back to the Midland or Germany garage. No one could know what was really inside in the pits .the funny thing is Van Valkenburg point out some ignorant journalists that couldn't deduct anything from seeing what was on the casing, but nevetheless told stories in races reports....    

  Maybe Jim Hall had simply to respect a gentleman contract with the R & D guys?

Edited by M Needforspeed, Dec 06 2010 - 09:29 AM.


#83 Lee200

Lee200

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 09:28 AM

No problem Michel and I didn't take your post as a criticism of the sports car physics at all. :)

It's always good to read more research information; especially when it agrees or backs up what we thought was true.

It would have been interesting if the FIA had allowed the big 7.0L engines to continue into 1968.  Both Ford and Chevrolet were certainly capable of producing 575 to 600 horsepower from their 427 engines by simply going to overhead cam designs.

The Porsche 917 initially had about 580 horsepower in a 800 KG car so it didn't take long for the manufacturers to work around the rules.   :D

#84 M Needforspeed

M Needforspeed

    Denny Hulme

  • GPLLinks Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:GPL - start a collection of GPL era die cast racing cars -Skiing
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 09:39 AM

View PostLee200, on Dec 06 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

No problem Michel and I didn't take your post as a criticism of the sports car physics at all. :)

It's always good to read more research information; especially when it agrees or backs up what we thought was true.

It would have been interesting if the FIA had allowed the big 7.0L engines to continue into 1968.  Both Ford and Chevrolet were certainly capable of producing 575 to 600 horsepower from their 427 engines by simply going to overhead cam designs.

The Porsche 917 initially had about 580 horsepower in a 800 KG car so it didn't take long for the manufacturers to work around the rules.   :D

  Yes, the 2F has been alas a "symphony inachevĂ©e".Should be one of the mightiest racing car ever built.

   Chaparral wld have been a sure winner.The big chevy 427 had already been impressive in reliability all along the 67 season.
  This car was clearly well in advance for the era it raced in.
  Phill Hill, Troy rogers, Frank Weiss,alls testimonied later the 2F had showed only a part of its potential

#85 sky

sky

    ultra highres junkie & 917 addict

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the last haven for petrolheads
  • Interests:travel, music, racing, vintage cars, model cars
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Dec 06 2010 - 10:04 AM

View PostLee200, on Dec 06 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

It would have been interesting if the FIA had allowed the big 7.0L engines to continue into 1968.  Both Ford and Chevrolet were certainly capable of producing 575 to 600 horsepower from their 427 engines by simply going to overhead cam designs.

The Porsche 917 initially had about 580 horsepower in a 800 KG car so it didn't take long for the manufacturers to work around the rules.   :D

and that's where porsche would have picked up the gauntlet when they were testing the 917/16. just gawk at the figures:
16 cylinders
7.2 litres
880bhp

in a car that would probably weigh around 775kg tops. comparable maybe to the power to weight ratios of the monsters of the 1971 canam series - think mclaren m8f.  :shock: WANT!

/edit actually just checked 775kg not 850 as i wrote earlier
and of course by then the turbo technology was so far that it could be used. and we all know where that ended up, 917/30 1500bhp or thereabouts and same basic weight. :S

Edited by sky, Dec 06 2010 - 10:53 AM.


#86 Nokiabrier

Nokiabrier

    Denny Hulme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Qc, Canada
  • Interests:GPL, Curling
  • Sim interest:GPL

Posted Sep 28 2013 - 07:42 PM

View Postrichard cooke, on Nov 17 2010 - 02:05 PM, said:

The 2F had a pedal to operate the wing where a normal car would have a clutch pedal.  The wing was normally at the maximum down force angle and pressing the pedal would move it to the minimum drag angle.  The driver would press the pedal coming out of the corner so the car had minimum drag down the straight.  When he reached his braking point he would take his foot off the wing pedal and push the brake pedal.  The wing would then be at its maximum down force and drag angle when braking and cornering.
Which is some kind of a back-in-the-day DRS :P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Sim Racing Links