Airbox or Cone filter, interesting!!!!!!!!
07-03-2010, 12:49 PM
#41
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
The was a thread tabethas gauges that had piccies, unless you want some different ones ?, just let me know happy to snap a few more, even got me wireless printer working perfectimo now, so glad I swapped from HP to Lexmark, what an improvement, even does colour fax and double sided printing.
tabetha
07-03-2010, 01:30 PM
#42
I must have taken around 40-60 piccies along the way, can send them all to your email if you want ?
The was a thread tabethas gauges that had piccies, unless you want some different ones ?, just let me know happy to snap a few more, even got me wireless printer working perfectimo now, so glad I swapped from HP to Lexmark, what an improvement, even does colour fax and double sided printing.
tabetha
The was a thread tabethas gauges that had piccies, unless you want some different ones ?, just let me know happy to snap a few more, even got me wireless printer working perfectimo now, so glad I swapped from HP to Lexmark, what an improvement, even does colour fax and double sided printing.
tabetha
09-03-2010, 12:04 PM
#46
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
The number 7 doesn't have one now!!
Yes seat belt cutter and glass breaker, have this and fire ex's(2) and tow rope and first aid kit in every car.
tabetha
Yes seat belt cutter and glass breaker, have this and fire ex's(2) and tow rope and first aid kit in every car.
tabetha
09-03-2010, 06:37 PM
#50
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
Lots of very knowledgeable people tell you they suffer from heat soak.
Doing what I have done shows this to be wrong, there is certainly no heat issue to worry about, making the air filter box a must have over a cone filter, I have simply presented the figures here in C so you can make your own mind up.
Put it this way I have an airbox, but it's not going on now, even have abrand new K&N panel filter for it, with what I've found it won't be going on.
There's a few wires there, the gauges backlighting is more than 12v so they use a small transformer each to up the 12v, I counted around 40-45 wires.
It is very easy to do, do one bit at a time, becomes very clear and simple.
Just putting connectors on me alarm cable wire for me rear strobes, amber and red, what a chav!!
Alos putting on a brake flasher, this really is simple, only three wires, adjustable speed of flash and duration of flashes(up to 5 secs), if done on the fog side with the 10pence brake fog light mod it is 100% LEGAL and MOT passable as well, just got a severe fear of being rear ended, and not in a nice way, me gf said that but think she was on about something else!!
tabetha
tabetha
Doing what I have done shows this to be wrong, there is certainly no heat issue to worry about, making the air filter box a must have over a cone filter, I have simply presented the figures here in C so you can make your own mind up.
Put it this way I have an airbox, but it's not going on now, even have abrand new K&N panel filter for it, with what I've found it won't be going on.
There's a few wires there, the gauges backlighting is more than 12v so they use a small transformer each to up the 12v, I counted around 40-45 wires.
It is very easy to do, do one bit at a time, becomes very clear and simple.
Just putting connectors on me alarm cable wire for me rear strobes, amber and red, what a chav!!
Alos putting on a brake flasher, this really is simple, only three wires, adjustable speed of flash and duration of flashes(up to 5 secs), if done on the fog side with the 10pence brake fog light mod it is 100% LEGAL and MOT passable as well, just got a severe fear of being rear ended, and not in a nice way, me gf said that but think she was on about something else!!
tabetha
tabetha
09-03-2010, 09:08 PM
#53
PassionFord Post Troll
the engine bay will affect heat soak alot
hes not saying which is better, just that hes getting x degrees using that filter and showing that you dont have to have an airbox to get cold air
using these results it shows that a cone will give cold air (some people think that cones just get heat soak so an airbox is needed to get cold air
but heatsoak is still a propblem depending on the location of the airfilter in the bay
hes not saying which is better, just that hes getting x degrees using that filter and showing that you dont have to have an airbox to get cold air
using these results it shows that a cone will give cold air (some people think that cones just get heat soak so an airbox is needed to get cold air
but heatsoak is still a propblem depending on the location of the airfilter in the bay
09-03-2010, 10:18 PM
#54
If all goes well i,ll be visiting Tabs on Friday to lend him a standard airbox to test against the cone results. Be an interesting test .
Tabetha i have found a cold feed tube, must of come with the K&N before i bought the car. I,ll bring this too.
edit. ive just thought, this test could be useful ON a track day too. mentioned before i know, but a 20 min hard constant thrash has gotta be much harsher than what you could produce on road. Never the less the test will definately prove one way or another for hard road use which most of us are interested in.
Tabetha i have found a cold feed tube, must of come with the K&N before i bought the car. I,ll bring this too.
edit. ive just thought, this test could be useful ON a track day too. mentioned before i know, but a 20 min hard constant thrash has gotta be much harsher than what you could produce on road. Never the less the test will definately prove one way or another for hard road use which most of us are interested in.
Last edited by opposite lock; 09-03-2010 at 10:25 PM.
10-03-2010, 06:00 PM
#56
Regular Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Devon
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread! I have spent a lot of time and effort on temperature monitoring around the cosworth engine but have to say using a single resistor to maintain a 5 volt supply to the display is most unsatisfactory! If you are happy to blow up gauges then carry on but much better to have a proper solid state regulator that will cope with varying demands that your electronics require. You would only need a few more components and would cost about
Ł5 in total. Just my opinion of course. If you want a diagram I can post one.
CheeRS Mike
Ł5 in total. Just my opinion of course. If you want a diagram I can post one.
CheeRS Mike
10-03-2010, 07:28 PM
#58
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
Don't need a diagram(thanks anyway), upon testing the TEMPERATURE GUAGE work from 3.6 Volts up to 7.7 Volts, I pegged it midway at 5 Volts, I did refer to a mate, and trust him, as you should, he repairs/works on missile guidance systems for a living, and some of his are on the planes flying overhead.
I have been using these gauges for years, very reliable only ever had one failure, I also use a different version that is just a straight lcd, but I put a backlight in them using acrylic and a led, they take 2 batteries normally but again just use resistor for 12v, I always err very much on the side of caution with the supply, as you say they can be a bit "variable", but haven't found need yet for a stabilised supply.
I used a Israeli Yeago 1/2 watt resistor, but gauge is rated at 30ma so it's all safe and fine, tested for stable reading between the voltage points above, and there was neglible difference, on measurement.
NB, the 5 volt refference is for the TEMPERATURE GAUGE ONLY, of course the others are 12v gauges.
tabetha
I have been using these gauges for years, very reliable only ever had one failure, I also use a different version that is just a straight lcd, but I put a backlight in them using acrylic and a led, they take 2 batteries normally but again just use resistor for 12v, I always err very much on the side of caution with the supply, as you say they can be a bit "variable", but haven't found need yet for a stabilised supply.
I used a Israeli Yeago 1/2 watt resistor, but gauge is rated at 30ma so it's all safe and fine, tested for stable reading between the voltage points above, and there was neglible difference, on measurement.
NB, the 5 volt refference is for the TEMPERATURE GAUGE ONLY, of course the others are 12v gauges.
tabetha
Last edited by tabetha; 10-03-2010 at 07:54 PM.
11-03-2010, 01:49 PM
#60
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
11-03-2010, 02:34 PM
#61
Very scientific 
. Now try the same experiment on track and see the difference 
.
I have an ACT gauge sensor inside my airbox and even in the protected enviroment of that the temps are well above ambient in the harsh environment of track use. The underbonnet temps can reach anything up to 70°C
. If you look at the rally cars, they even put heat reflective material on the outside of the airbox to prevent radiated heat from raising the inlet temps. Also, if you care to read back (Rod 
), you will see ALL my posts refer to track conditions NOT road conditions . I am not monitoring my temps on a temperary basis to prove a point, my set up is monitoring the temps on a PERMANENT basis, as I am always looking to reduce ACTs for free power. I measure both airbox temps and post intercooler temps ALL the time. It's amazing how different the ACTs are on track compared to the occasional high speed run on the road. But I'm sure you all know that .
A quick tickle of the throttle on the road is barely going to get the manifold hot, let alone the engine bay LOL.
As to what people chose to fit on THEIR cars, I honestly would prefer everyone else to run cone filters, as excessive ACTs lead to a loss in power, so that is fine by me.
I forgot to say that the Escort is more prone to radiated heat issues due to the close nature of everything, the Sierra's have far more room and may not suffer as much, but the Escort is a bugger for it....
. Now try the same experiment on track and see the difference .I have an ACT gauge sensor inside my airbox and even in the protected enviroment of that the temps are well above ambient in the harsh environment of track use. The underbonnet temps can reach anything up to 70°C
. If you look at the rally cars, they even put heat reflective material on the outside of the airbox to prevent radiated heat from raising the inlet temps. Also, if you care to read back (Rod ), you will see ALL my posts refer to track conditions NOT road conditions . I am not monitoring my temps on a temperary basis to prove a point, my set up is monitoring the temps on a PERMANENT basis, as I am always looking to reduce ACTs for free power. I measure both airbox temps and post intercooler temps ALL the time. It's amazing how different the ACTs are on track compared to the occasional high speed run on the road. But I'm sure you all know that .A quick tickle of the throttle on the road is barely going to get the manifold hot, let alone the engine bay LOL
. As to what people chose to fit on THEIR cars, I honestly would prefer everyone else to run cone filters, as excessive ACTs lead to a loss in power, so that is fine by me
.I forgot to say that the Escort is more prone to radiated heat issues due to the close nature of everything, the Sierra's have far more room and may not suffer as much, but the Escort is a bugger for it....
Last edited by Mike Rainbird; 11-03-2010 at 02:39 PM.
11-03-2010, 03:51 PM
#62
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
Dear Mike,
I never stated anywhere that these were likely to be the results encoutered on track.
Please feel free to now let people know that they don't apparently need a airbox for the road.
You should have stayed in bed mike, how many engines have you had off harvey now, were they all the best ?, bet he likes people like you.
I never said it was scientific I stated precisely what I had done and how I had done it, any wrong conclusion you draw about the "test" procedure is down to you, you may not be able to see very well, your heads shoved so far up some arses you need a torch.
tabetha
I never stated anywhere that these were likely to be the results encoutered on track.
Please feel free to now let people know that they don't apparently need a airbox for the road.
You should have stayed in bed mike, how many engines have you had off harvey now, were they all the best ?, bet he likes people like you.
I never said it was scientific I stated precisely what I had done and how I had done it, any wrong conclusion you draw about the "test" procedure is down to you, you may not be able to see very well, your heads shoved so far up some arses you need a torch.
tabetha
11-03-2010, 06:51 PM
#64
PassionFord Post Troll
how many people actually use their cars on the track compared to road though?
on the track is different to the road, but this is a road test showing for the average joe a cone isnt sucking in air at stupid tempratures
i think its a good scientific test for the road/average joe
but by all means do a test on the track and let us know your results too, which you dont seem to have doen unless im missing something!?
on the track is different to the road, but this is a road test showing for the average joe a cone isnt sucking in air at stupid tempratures
i think its a good scientific test for the road/average joe
but by all means do a test on the track and let us know your results too, which you dont seem to have doen unless im missing something!?
11-03-2010, 08:54 PM
#65
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i do like the look of E.L gauges as you have stated much easier to see than LED or bulb lit ones.
Good findings by the way i'm planning on putting one of them temp gauges in mine to keep an eye on air intake temp(a Ł5 Pc one with a 16p resistor not a Ł35 cossie one!!!!!!!!)
Phil
12-03-2010, 09:10 AM
#67
Dear Mike,
I never stated anywhere that these were likely to be the results encoutered on track.
Please feel free to now let people know that they don't apparently need a airbox for the road.
You should have stayed in bed mike, how many engines have you had off harvey now, were they all the best ?, bet he likes people like you.
I never said it was scientific I stated precisely what I had done and how I had done it, any wrong conclusion you draw about the "test" procedure is down to you, you may not be able to see very well, your heads shoved so far up some arses you need a torch.
tabetha
I never stated anywhere that these were likely to be the results encoutered on track.
Please feel free to now let people know that they don't apparently need a airbox for the road.
You should have stayed in bed mike, how many engines have you had off harvey now, were they all the best ?, bet he likes people like you.
I never said it was scientific I stated precisely what I had done and how I had done it, any wrong conclusion you draw about the "test" procedure is down to you, you may not be able to see very well, your heads shoved so far up some arses you need a torch.
tabetha
I am more than happy for anyone to fit what-ever induction system they want to their car. It is no skin off my nose (which there is plenty of
). I just would not fit an open element on my own car. If I was forced to do so because of exceeding the flow level of the airbox (550bhp), then I would do what Rod has done, and build a box around the cone (which according to you / him he doesn't need - so why has he done it? 
). However, on track this would lead to issues of noise suppression, as a T4 turbo (or bigger) at above 1.8 bar suffers huge problems with induction noise with an open element. The airbox helps suppress this (which is an important consideration for me - as my car even has four silencers to pass these strictly imposed limits).Moving on - how many engines have I had off Harvey? Quite a few in the 16 years I have owned Cossies (343bhp engine (after the original one died at 86k with a cracked block), which did 16,000 miles before being upgraded to 385bhp (did 172mph on 803s - no other car has got near this
), this engine then did a further 16,000miles. I then upgraded to 419bhp (new pistons, headwork cams, Bosch 400s and turbo (as I had got used to the 385bhp ), where that engine then did 14,000miles. Unfortunately due to a mapping error (Ahmed) that engine let go at 7000+rpm at a top speed event, where Ahmed had only mapped it up to 7000rpm (after fitting a T4 the day before), but didn't tell me he hadn't been able to check it above this figure (did a verified 172mph again though LOL). I then got Harvey to build me the 515bhp engine, which did 20,000 miles trouble free, taking the top speed record for a short period (180+mph) and did 150+mph 3-4 times every tank full for the duration I had it (before I then crashed it 
). The engine survived, was topped and tailed and is still around . I then had the engine in the Escort taken from 400bhp (how I bought it) to 477bhp. Again we experimented at my request (big crank / standard rods) and had a cracked piston issue due to using short compression height JE pistons (rubbish - too brittle ) just after it had finished running in (happened at Bedford). These were change under warranty for lower compression Accralite, and this engine then did 40,000+ miles trouble free . It was then rebuilt to the 500+ spec (I got greedy ). This new engine suffered a cracked block (where the limits of an overbore were tested on a thickwall casting, but 93mm and 500+bhp won't work on a non-lined block ), again, this was replaced under warranty (I obviously had to pay for all the Nikasil steel liners and machining work, as I would have done if we had gone down that route in the first place) and then where the nose fell of the Farndon crank on this same engine (replaced under warranty, but I had to contribute Ł600 to Farndon to get a replacement crank 
).Once the teething problems were ironed out on the latest engine (some 2˝ years ago - and was also the blueprint for the same spec bottom end as Andy G's 806bhp lump
), the engine has performed faultlessly and been totally reliable.I suspect that wasn't what you wanted to hear though?
Last edited by Mike Rainbird; 12-03-2010 at 11:33 AM.
13-03-2010, 04:59 PM
#69
Dear Mike,
I never stated anywhere that these were likely to be the results encoutered on track.
Please feel free to now let people know that they don't apparently need a airbox for the road.
You should have stayed in bed mike, how many engines have you had off harvey now, were they all the best ?, bet he likes people like you.
I never said it was scientific I stated precisely what I had done and how I had done it, any wrong conclusion you draw about the "test" procedure is down to you, you may not be able to see very well, your heads shoved so far up some arses you need a torch.
tabetha
I never stated anywhere that these were likely to be the results encoutered on track.
Please feel free to now let people know that they don't apparently need a airbox for the road.
You should have stayed in bed mike, how many engines have you had off harvey now, were they all the best ?, bet he likes people like you.
I never said it was scientific I stated precisely what I had done and how I had done it, any wrong conclusion you draw about the "test" procedure is down to you, you may not be able to see very well, your heads shoved so far up some arses you need a torch.
tabetha
As for HARVEY??? nothing to do with me , dont know what ur on about Tabetha
As for me offering you an airbox to you saying im up peoples arse,s where did you get that from? Public forum here, feel like ive proper pissed you off , certainly not my intention , why would i do that ???
Mike
13-03-2010, 08:35 PM
#71
20K+ Super Poster.
Thread Starter
Why resort to that level?
I am more than happy for anyone to fit what-ever induction system they want to their car. It is no skin off my nose (which there is plenty of). I just would not fit an open element on my own car. If I was forced to do so because of exceeding the flow level of the airbox (550bhp), then I would do what Rod has done, and build a box around the cone (which according to you / him he doesn't need - so why has he done it? ). However, on track this would lead to issues of noise suppression, as a T4 turbo (or bigger) at above 1.8 bar suffers huge problems with induction noise with an open element. The airbox helps suppress this (which is an important consideration for me - as my car even has four silencers to pass these strictly imposed limits).
Moving on - how many engines have I had off Harvey? Quite a few in the 16 years I have owned Cossies (343bhp engine (after the original one died at 86k with a cracked block), which did 16,000 miles before being upgraded to 385bhp (did 172mph on 803s - no other car has got near this), this engine then did a further 16,000miles. I then upgraded to 419bhp (new pistons, headwork cams, Bosch 400s and turbo (as I had got used to the 385bhp ), where that engine then did 14,000miles. Unfortunately due to a mapping error (Ahmed) that engine let go at 7000+rpm at a top speed event, where Ahmed had only mapped it up to 7000rpm (after fitting a T4 the day before), but didn't tell me he hadn't been able to check it above this figure (did a verified 172mph again though LOL). I then got Harvey to build me the 515bhp engine, which did 20,000 miles trouble free, taking the top speed record for a short period (180+mph) and did 150+mph 3-4 times every tank full for the duration I had it (before I then crashed it ). The engine survived, was topped and tailed and is still around . I then had the engine in the Escort taken from 400bhp (how I bought it) to 477bhp. Again we experimented at my request (big crank / standard rods) and had a cracked piston issue due to using short compression height JE pistons (rubbish - too brittle ) just after it had finished running in (happened at Bedford). These were change under warranty for lower compression Accralite, and this engine then did 40,000+ miles trouble free . It was then rebuilt to the 500+ spec (I got greedy ). This new engine suffered a cracked block (where the limits of an overbore were tested on a thickwall casting, but 93mm and 500+bhp won't work on a non-lined block ), again, this was replaced under warranty (I obviously had to pay for all the Nikasil steel liners and machining work, as I would have done if we had gone down that route in the first place) and then where the nose fell of the Farndon crank on this same engine (replaced under warranty, but I had to contribute Ł600 to Farndon to get a replacement crank ).
Once the teething problems were ironed out on the latest engine (some 2˝ years ago - and was also the blueprint for the same spec bottom end as Andy G's 806bhp lump), the engine has performed faultlessly and been totally reliable.
I suspect that wasn't what you wanted to hear though?
I am more than happy for anyone to fit what-ever induction system they want to their car. It is no skin off my nose (which there is plenty of
). I just would not fit an open element on my own car. If I was forced to do so because of exceeding the flow level of the airbox (550bhp), then I would do what Rod has done, and build a box around the cone (which according to you / him he doesn't need - so why has he done it? ). However, on track this would lead to issues of noise suppression, as a T4 turbo (or bigger) at above 1.8 bar suffers huge problems with induction noise with an open element. The airbox helps suppress this (which is an important consideration for me - as my car even has four silencers to pass these strictly imposed limits).Moving on - how many engines have I had off Harvey? Quite a few in the 16 years I have owned Cossies (343bhp engine (after the original one died at 86k with a cracked block), which did 16,000 miles before being upgraded to 385bhp (did 172mph on 803s - no other car has got near this
), this engine then did a further 16,000miles. I then upgraded to 419bhp (new pistons, headwork cams, Bosch 400s and turbo (as I had got used to the 385bhp ), where that engine then did 14,000miles. Unfortunately due to a mapping error (Ahmed) that engine let go at 7000+rpm at a top speed event, where Ahmed had only mapped it up to 7000rpm (after fitting a T4 the day before), but didn't tell me he hadn't been able to check it above this figure (did a verified 172mph again though LOL). I then got Harvey to build me the 515bhp engine, which did 20,000 miles trouble free, taking the top speed record for a short period (180+mph) and did 150+mph 3-4 times every tank full for the duration I had it (before I then crashed it ). The engine survived, was topped and tailed and is still around . I then had the engine in the Escort taken from 400bhp (how I bought it) to 477bhp. Again we experimented at my request (big crank / standard rods) and had a cracked piston issue due to using short compression height JE pistons (rubbish - too brittle ) just after it had finished running in (happened at Bedford). These were change under warranty for lower compression Accralite, and this engine then did 40,000+ miles trouble free . It was then rebuilt to the 500+ spec (I got greedy ). This new engine suffered a cracked block (where the limits of an overbore were tested on a thickwall casting, but 93mm and 500+bhp won't work on a non-lined block ), again, this was replaced under warranty (I obviously had to pay for all the Nikasil steel liners and machining work, as I would have done if we had gone down that route in the first place) and then where the nose fell of the Farndon crank on this same engine (replaced under warranty, but I had to contribute Ł600 to Farndon to get a replacement crank ).Once the teething problems were ironed out on the latest engine (some 2˝ years ago - and was also the blueprint for the same spec bottom end as Andy G's 806bhp lump
), the engine has performed faultlessly and been totally reliable.I suspect that wasn't what you wanted to hear though?
tabetha
16-03-2010, 07:38 PM
#73
Puller of the Wrench
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My datalogging with my megasquirt has shown no difference with a cone or a stock airbox. This is driven on the street.
I data logged for a long time the intake temps to a giant hour long spreadsheet and compared. I'll just run the cone.
Now, I do have an undertray/front diffuser. No splitter on an RS500 bumper. Escort cossie vents. The front diffuser is as such:
It now has a channel on the bottom and is angled down at 4deg. Mounting on the bottom rad holes. I have no cross pipe with my system. It forces some downforce but it is mostly fo force cool air up into the engine and out the vents. Positive pressure if you will.
If you can move air into the engine bay then don't worry. Got it sealed up like a nun's pants? Stock? Then do what you like. Do the calcs on power loss at an extra 2c, 5, 7, 10c and see if it is worth the hassle.
I data logged for a long time the intake temps to a giant hour long spreadsheet and compared. I'll just run the cone.
Now, I do have an undertray/front diffuser. No splitter on an RS500 bumper. Escort cossie vents. The front diffuser is as such:
It now has a channel on the bottom and is angled down at 4deg. Mounting on the bottom rad holes. I have no cross pipe with my system. It forces some downforce but it is mostly fo force cool air up into the engine and out the vents. Positive pressure if you will.
If you can move air into the engine bay then don't worry. Got it sealed up like a nun's pants? Stock? Then do what you like. Do the calcs on power loss at an extra 2c, 5, 7, 10c and see if it is worth the hassle.
17-03-2010, 11:33 AM
#75
. As to visiting you, I have no idea where you live, but you are always welcome to the Norfolk group meets, which are still on the last Tuesday of the month (although they have moved now from the Parson Woodford (where it was when you last came) to The Lodge at Tuddenham 
).You do realise it is okay for two people to disagree? I just wanted to point out that the extent of your testing was not sufficient to write-off the use of an airbox over a cone, which is what it seemed you were attempting to pass on as a given
. At least now that people are armed with both sets of facts, they can decide whether the cone filter or airbox arrangement is suitable for their intended use.
17-03-2010, 12:21 PM
#76
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC AVA tested both a cone filter and a standard (then modified) airbox on Rapidcossie's 550bhp engine. This was extensive testing on the RR and the cone filter returned less power and higher temps.
I for one would go with what Mike says as he has had more chances than most over the years to test such theorys. e.g. Several high power engines, lots of laps on track and also Harvey's input.
Only IMO.
I for one would go with what Mike says as he has had more chances than most over the years to test such theorys. e.g. Several high power engines, lots of laps on track and also Harvey's input.
Only IMO.
17-03-2010, 12:44 PM
#77
IIRC AVA tested both a cone filter and a standard (then modified) airbox on Rapidcossie's 550bhp engine. This was extensive testing on the RR and the cone filter returned less power and higher temps.
I for one would go with what Mike says as he has had more chances than most over the years to test such theorys. e.g. Several high power engines, lots of laps on track and also Harvey's input.
Only IMO.
I for one would go with what Mike says as he has had more chances than most over the years to test such theorys. e.g. Several high power engines, lots of laps on track and also Harvey's input.
Only IMO.
).Track use is where heat management comes into it's own and is strictly necessary to control.
This can be done in lots of different ways:
http://www.randbmotorsport.co.uk/sho..._-_Cooling.pdf
.................:c ry:
?