Joined
·
4,452 Posts
I'd think there's a big difference between 1.4G and 1G. And for what Porsche charges for their cars I'd assume they'd run some basic tests like this.:crazyeyes
You've got to hand it to the Porsche engineers... they're not kidding around.
EDIT: just one thing... I assume you can't generate more than 1G of load on that rig... and in a 1G corner you're actually generating 1.4G total (1G lateral, 1G downward)... so while you can generate the angle of that load (45 degrees), you can't generate that magnitude. Don't know if that makes a significant difference
Oh, yeah... agreed: there's a big difference in forces... but I'm guessing they're trying to determine whether they get sufficient oil pressure regardless of the angle of the forces, not the magnitude. It would be near impossible to design an indoor rig that could generate 1.4G for say, 20 seconds (i.e. a long sweeper), then suddenly go back to 1.0G. Even a centrifugal arm can't change the magnitude of G forces that quickly.I'd think there's a big difference between 1.4G and 1G. And for what Porsche charges for their cars I'd assume they'd run some basic tests like this.
I'll certainly agree this test is much better than nothing. And it's kind of silly to compare this to the engineering of the 2ZZ, considering the cost of the cars it was intended for and their low cornering capability.Oh, yeah... agreed: there's a big difference in forces... but I'm guessing they're trying to determine whether they get sufficient oil pressure regardless of the angle of the forces, not the magnitude. It would be near impossible to design an indoor rig that could generate 1.4G for say, 20 seconds (i.e. a long sweeper), then suddenly go back to 1.0G. Even a centrifugal arm can't change the magnitude of G forces that quickly.
"basic tests" rotflI'd think there's a big difference between 1.4G and 1G. And for what Porsche charges for their cars I'd assume they'd run some basic tests like this.
I don't know how you engineer things, but from my standpoint this test is due diligence given the cost and purpose of the car."basic tests" rotfl
That reminds me of the difficulty in designing a piston engine for an aerobatic/combat plane. Talk about random G-vectors!Well, since they aren't really testing G forces as I agree with xtn, why don't they just run the engine upside down and then on it's sides for several minutes at high RPM. If the engine can with stand that, it should be go. That's gotta be a safety factor of about 100.![]()
+1The most amazing part of that for me is the size of the hydraulic engine brake to put load on the engine. That sucker is tiny.
Porsche really does go the extra mile.
I heard it was grease pencils.When they started sending men in the space, the NASA designed a 10,000$ pen that could write upside down in zero gravity.
The russians space agency gave their men pencils.
Not at all, although it makes a great urban legend and a way to make fun of "the establishment".When they started sending men in the space, the NASA designed a 10,000$ pen that could write upside down in zero gravity.
The russians space agency gave their men pencils.
It's when they do 0 g's that things get interesting. Most engines can handle a lot of negative or positive g's fairly easily, provided they are designed for it, but I think there is a lot of trouble to do sustained zero g flight. But, I have never flown the real acrobatic focused airplanes, which I imagine would deal with zero g flight better than most other aircraft. Oh well, hopefully someone more of an expert than I will chime in.Kind of cool. Consider the g-forces and oil flow on an aircraft engine doing acrobatics. That gets interesting.